Talk:Referendum Party/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 05:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll take this one. Feel free to quibble with any of my points. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All prose issues have been addressed.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * No issues
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Solid, solid sources throughout.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No issues
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig's tool flags only quotations; spot checks find nothing except mirrors.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Main aspects have been covered.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous material
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No issues with stability
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Image licensing checks out to the best of my knowledge
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Caption issues fixed
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Solid article, all my comments have been addressed.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Solid article, all my comments have been addressed.

Comments

 * I think the election results image needs to explain the colours in some manner, whether it's just by describing the Ref. Party's results, the major colours, or all the colours. To a person outside the UK, the various colours don't have the same significance as they do outside.
 * A very valid point. I will add mention of what the colours mean. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better, but can we have the parentheses as a second sentence? It's long enough that it makes the rest confusing.


 * "he was also critical when the EU signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade" could this be rephrased? It's not incorrect, but "he was critical of X" reads a lot easier.
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "previous" in place of " pre-existing".
 * I've gone with "prior", which I think is better than both "previous" and "pre-existing" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if the paragraph beginning "The UK's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty" would fit better in the next subsection. You could then split off a sub-section called "membership" or something, to address the length issue.
 * I'm not sure if this paragraph really belongs in "Ideology and early growth" because it does not actually deal with the party or its early growth. For that reason, I'd be hesitant about moving it. That being said, I agree it does not sit perfectly where it is currently located. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, how's this. You currently have nine paragraphs in the "Formation" section, six of which are in the "Ideology and early growth". Try it this way: create two sub-sections under "Formation", titled "Background and ideology" and "early growth". "Background and ideology" can contain paragraphs 3, 1, 2, and 4, in that order. "Early growth" can contain the rest, though I would suggest merging paragraph 9 into paragraph 7.
 * That could work. I've made the suggested rearrangements. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * " although the point was raised that some of these individuals" Raised by whom?
 * Having reread the sentence, I think that the best thing here is just to delete "the point was raised" from it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If Carter is a scholar, maybe helpful to say that.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is totally optional at the GA level, but the last paragraph of "Formation" (para 9 from above) could use a footnote explaining how the MP could remain an MP despite his branch not backing him. In many countries switching parties is enough to make a person lose their seat.
 * That's a good point. However, I'm not really sure where to find a reliable source that actually explains this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "The funding for each candidate's official campaign was funded entirely by the party centre." The funding...was funded."?
 * Changed "funded" to "supplied". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Goldsmith talking directly to the camera." What did he say? A brief sentence would be adequate, I think.
 * I have added a few additional words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Referendum Party stood in 547 constituencies" Perhaps "candidates of the Referendum party..."
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "None were in Northern Ireland, where Goldsmith had established an agreement with the Ulster Unionist Party that he would not stand candidates against them" I find this rather confusing, to be honest...probably easier to say "Goldsmith had established...under the terms of which..."
 * I've gone with the following: "None of these candidates were in Northern Ireland. This was because Goldsmith had made an agreement with Northern Ireland's Ulster Unionist Party that he would not field any candidates against them if their one MEP joined his Europe of Nations grouping in the European Parliament, something that ensured that the grouping remained large enough to retain its Parliamentary funding.". What do you think of this change? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * " the issue of EU fishing quotas." What might that issue be?
 * I've changed the wording to "who were angry with the restrictions imposed by EU fishing quotas". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "cannot be considered the only factor." Rather heavy use of editorial voice...
 * I've changed this sentence to the following: "The reasons for their electoral decline were many and the impact of the Referendum Party was not the only factor". Hopefully this deals with the issue of editorial voice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You use "et al" in one case, but spell out four authors in another: why? If there's four of them, maybe shorten to "a paper" or "scholars".
 * I've spelled out the four authors here too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering about the use Zac Goldsmith's statement; he wouldn't be a reliable source in any case, and he has an obvious conflict of interest...were there any responses to his statement?
 * Not that I am aware of. Given that the opinion piece is published in The Spectator, I would have thought that this counts as a reliable source of sorts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well...yes, the source is reliably for reporting his statement, but the fact remains that he is essentially saying "look my dad was a bigger deal than everybody thinks he is". Even so, we could report it if independent commentators had taken any note of his opinion; as is, though, I'd just remove it.
 * Fair enough. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly I'd remove that external link; with very little in the article body about that "successor", I'm not sure it serves much purpose, and indeed may be seen as giving that party undue attention.
 * Removed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Although Emeraude has contested the removal and restored the wording... Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I'm done here: solidly written article throughout, interesting and well-presented material as always, just these quibbles to be dealt with. But I'm more or less starting my Wikibreak after this edit (I actually thought I'd have to leave a few hours ago) so passing may have to wait until I come back in a few days' time. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that I've responded to everything, Vanamonde. Many thanks for taking the time to review this article and offer your thoughts. Hope that your Wikibreak was enjoyable and constructive! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you patience. Just two minor points, and we're good to go. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to those! Again, many thanks for the review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work, passing. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)