Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liz Truss/archive1

Liz Truss

 * Nominator(s): Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Liz Truss, the shortest-serving prime minister of the United Kingdom so far, beginning her premiership exactly one year ago today. The article went through an immensely helpful peer review which closed yesterday, after I'd rewritten it from scratch in August. This is my first FAC, so apologies if anything has been done wrong; that's on me. BLP writing is tricky, and I think I've struck a decent balance between brevity and comprehensiveness, but I look forward to all your comments pointing out the contrary. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - Am I clear to add this to the image and source review requests page? Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added it there for you - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild: Looks like you'll be closing this one. The image and source reviews are both completed, and I've gathered a healthy number of supports, so hopefully this one'll be a promotion. Could you hold off until 25 October, to allow for a few would-be-last-minute reviewers to comment, andfor purely superficial reasonsso that this article's candidacy can line up seamlessly with the one-year anniversary of the premiership? Then again, I'm not the one to tell you how to do your job: do as you wish. Thanks, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim. If you ping me on the second half of the 24th to remind me, then assuming I have not already archived it I shall see what I can do. You sure that you wouldn't prefer the bragging rights of getting it promoted within a year, rather than on 366 days? (PS I assume you are aware that you have "Email me" switched off?) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Either's fine, just neatness that it was nominated on 6 Sep, and, to the reviewers' credit, it's been timed pretty well to be the complete fifty days. Re bragging, the entire FAC community can joke that "this FAC lasted as long as she did *wink wink* *nudge nudge*". You're right that I've not connected my email to my WP account, just something I never thought to do. If you want, I'll drop a ping on Tuesday. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild - Forgot to ping yesterday, sorry. Hopefully all is tied up now. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley
When the nominator mentioned this overhaul, the much respected Johnbod expressed reservations about putting the article up so soon after the event. I take the point, but here we are and I think I must comment. I commented at PR and will have one last look before returning here in the next few days.  Tim riley  talk   21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * After a last perusal – and it certainly will be a last perusal, as I have no wish to be reminded of this person ever again – I am happy to support the elevation of the article. I could do with fewer mugshots of Truss, but that's just my view. If the article is promoted it will need more vigilance than most in the months and years ahead, I think, to make sure it continues to reflect current developments and sources, but for now I am satisfied that it meets the FA criteria. –  Tim riley  talk   16:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim, for comments both here and at PR. As new sources are created and Truss's life progresses, I'll make sure that the article adequately reflects both. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7
I know very little about British politics, so bear with me...

Lead

 * "In 1996, she joined the Conservative Party." This isn't in the body, so is unsourced.
 * Last line of "Early life and education".


 * "in the aftermath of the 2017 general election, was demoted to chief secretary to the Treasury." Subject missing. Consider splitting long sentence in two.
 * Done with a semicolon, let me know if this is still an issue.


 * " Johnson, who had resigned in an earlier government crisis" In the crisis, or because of it? Just checking...
 * Because of it. Amended.


 * " Her government then announced large-scale borrowing and tax cuts, which were widely criticised and largely reversed after financial instability; facing mounting criticism and loss of confidence in her leadership, Truss announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party." Consider splitting long sentence in two at the semicolon.
 * Done.


 * "Sunak was elected unopposed as her successor, and succeeded her as prime minister." Drop the comma.
 * Done.

Early life and education

 * Truss was known by her middle name Elizabeth Why the italics?
 * It's the done thing, is it not? WP:WORDSASWORDS, I think, is the relevant authority on this. Not exactly sure if this applies to names though.


 * "the family moved to Paisley, Renfrewshire when Truss was four years old," Parenthetical comma after Renfrewshire
 * Done.


 * "Truss praised the Canadian curriculum and the attitude that it was "really good to be top of the class", which she contrasted to her education at Roundhay." Can we be a bit more explicit about this? Roundhay did not value excellence? And was Truss near the top of her class?
 * I think Truss was slagging off Roundhay (aka lying to prove a point), and I think that, like all schools, it would have valued excellence. I'm on the fence about this one, but if you insist I could add something, although I don't know what it could be.


 * "During her time as a Lib Dem, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy,[27][28] and campaigned against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994." You haven't defined the abbreviation Lib Dem, although it is fairly obvious; suggest not using it. And did Truss change her opinions on these matters?
 * Fixed re Lib Dem. Not sure about Truss's opinion on either in later life: if I were to speculate, I'd say that she would support the legalisation of cannabis because of her small-state credentials, but I've no idea. With the monarchy, who knows.

Professional career

 * "From 1996 to 2000, Truss worked for Shell plc," She worked for Royal Dutch Shell plc; it changed its name in 2022. Do we really need the "plc"? And do we know what kind of work she did for them?
 * Shell fixed. Source doesn't say what she did; quoting the source, it says: "Truss took her accountancy qualifications and moved into the spare room of a fellow Shell graduate". I guess that she was an accountant, but hard to be sure.
 * "She co-authored The Value of Mathematics,[35] Fit for Purpose,[36] A New Level,[35] Back To Black,[37][38] and other reports." Citation required.
 * Done.
 * " having been introduced to the branch by her friend and future MP, Jackie Doyle-Price.[39][30] During this time, Truss met her future husband Hugh O'Leary at a reception at the Greenwich Conservative Association,[30] with whom she has two children: Frances (born 2006) and Liberty (born 2008)." Do we have to use "future" twice in as many sentences? And her children were with Hugh, not the Greenwich Conservative Association, right? And do we know the sex of her children?
 * Fixed.
 * "In January 2005, Sue Catling, the parliamentary candidate for the Calder Valley constituency, was forced to resign by the local Conservative Association after an affair with the association's chairman;[49] Catling claimed that the members of the party that had opposed her were sexist, saying that she was "accused of everything except murder and paedophilia"." Did the affair have anything to do with her resignation?
 * Yes. Changed "and" to "because of".
 * "Beginning in 2004, Truss embarked on an 18-month-long affair with the Conservative MP Mark Field" I take it that we are contrasting Sue with Liz here. Did Truss have any other affairs of note?
 * No. The fact that Catling and Truss both had affairs is a coincidence, although the book does emphasis the ironic value of the two.
 * I'm not familiar with British politics, but in Australia we had a politician called Gladys Berejiklian who had an affair with a another politician widely suspected to be a crook. She was a canny politician and realised that the media were far more interested in her sexual peccadillos than her ethical ones, so she went on shock-jock radio with salacious details. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 'some in the association asking for a local candidate and saying that she had been "parachuted in"" Was she? Did the national organisation impose Truss on the local body?
 * Not really. MPs in the UK are selected by members of the constituency (local) branch of the party from a shortlist of candidates which are drawn up, also by, I assume, the local branch (although not the members). The Taliban weren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
 * In Australia it is not uncommon for parties to impose a candidate on the local branch ("parachuting in"). Our preferential voting system means that it is more important for a candidate to appeal to the electorate than the party faithful. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Truss was elected as an MP in the 2010 general election, amongst other Conservatives;" There usually are more than one elected at each election I hear. (Where's ?)


 * Awkward wording fixed. There may not be more that one Tory elected at the next election, the way they're handling the RAAC crisis.
 * " the FEG" Define the abbrevoiation before you use it. Yes, I know. Do it anyway. MOS:ACRO1STUSE: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page"
 * Done.
 * "the top rate of tax to 40 pence" I think you mean 40 pence in the quid?
 * Yes, that's a UK-ism that we often do: say "45p" or "20p" for tax thresholds. Fixed.
 * Link carbon tax
 * Done.
 * "Truss soon became well known amongst members of parliament in Norfolk for her frequent photo ops,[71] but was well-respected amongst Conservative MPs, who recognised her as dedicated and hard-working;[72] one of her staff members said that Truss's "attention to the local stuff was just superb". Since it is a staff member and not an MP, this is a non-sequitur. Start a new sentence instead of the semicolon.
 * Done. More soon.

Ministerial career

 * "Truss wrote a white paper—More Great Childcare[82]—which would increase the maximum number of children childminders could look after at a time, from three to four," It think that the paper would not do this, but the policy.
 * Clarified.


 * he told Truss "this is my phone number" Colon after Truss
 * Done.


 * Suggest splitting "the first paragraph of Environment secretary (2014–2016) at "During her two years in the department"
 * Done.


 * "Truss made a speech in which she said "we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Dis-grace" Strange formatting here.
 * Hard to get across how she said it, which was the main reason she was mocked. The Times used "That. Is. A. Dis. grace" which would've looked even weirder. You can watch her say it here.


 * " "in December, I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets". Um, China is the world's biggest producer of pork.
 * Take it up with The Truss.


 * "in Australia she made unscripted comments on their free trade negotiations with the UK, both events to the dismay of Downing Street officials." The unscripted remarks or the free trade negotiations with Australia?
 * The remarks. Not sure if I can express that in the sentence though, I'd thought it was clear.


 * " the NFU" Another abbreviation.
 * Fixed.


 * "Downing Street expected her resignation, but Truss later privately decided against it." How is that even possible?
 * In the UK, Downing Street sometimes puts people on "resignation watch" if they're known to be disloyal or against a certain policy.


 * "including Partygate, which resulted in he and the chancellor Rishi Sunak" "him"
 * Done.


 * "DUP" this time you have to look under the link. (Doesn't mean a thing to me tho')
 * Fixed.

Premiership (September–October 2022)

 * " and began to appoint her cabinet that day" Aren't ministers appointed by the King?
 * Technically, but "recommended that the King appoint her cabinet" is a bit too literal.
 * I would suggest "selected" instead of "appointed". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ - done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and prompted a response from the Bank of England." Any idea what that was. (My guess: put their fingers in their ears and went ting-a-ling-a-loo.)
 * Yes, quite a bit actually; didn't want to be unequal by picking and choosing their measures, so I've added a link.
 * "Truss has supported Taiwan in the context of deteriorating cross-strait relations" I have no idea what this means
 * Me neither. A third editor left this for you and I to figure out. Maybe the readers can crack that nut. Added a link.
 * "condemned the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people as "genocide"." Hahaha. Takes the cake for lack of self-awareness.
 * "she called Saudi Arabia an ally but said she was not "condoning" the country's policies." Any idea what policies? (Allying with the UK I presume.)
 * Added, after looking at the source.

If you are trying to make her sound vacuous and guileless you have succeeded. (Nice touch: the images of her first and last speeches still wearing the same outfit.) Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments @. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Moved to support. One final note: Elgot, Jessica; O'Carroll, Lisa (10 May 2022) is not used in the article. Suggest deleting from the references. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dammit. It should be; must have missed it. Will fix. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One additional suggestion: "the list of her resignation honours, which are yet to be approved" Suggest the judicious use of the as of template. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't use the template as it requires the year, and putting "2023" twice in the same sentence would have destroyed the readability; put "as of September" instead. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie
More of a copyedit that should be easy to handle. The phrase "an idiot, full of sound and fury / Signifying nothing" comes to mind, but reliable sources (especially the book kind) seem to generally take a pretty dim view of the subject. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The comma after "2014" is unneeded.
 * Done


 * Early life
 * User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences: the comma here is unneeded.
 * Done
 * The second comma here is unneeded. (The part after the ", and" is not a standalone sentence.
 * Done


 * Political career
 * Did Liz have two daughters with the Greenwich Conservative Association? Restructure this sentence so the "with" clause comes directly after "Hugh O'Leary".
 * Done


 * Complete the appositive with a comma after "Unchained"
 * Done


 * The comma after "ops" is unneeded.
 * Fixed.


 * Ministerial career
 * Remove comma
 * Done (I'm assuming you mean the second).


 * Reverse the order of Clegg and Truss before the first comma so that Truss isn't telling Truss something.
 * The last two commas need to go
 * Done both.
 * Done both.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Before comma
 * Done.


 * Add a comma after Faulks
 * Done.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * add "she" after "but" to keep the comma
 * Done.


 * comma after counterpart, and is Lighthizer a place? ;)
 * Fixed.


 * Maybe split this long sentence after "and New Zealand"?
 * Done.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Maybe
 * Done, I didn't like that sentence either.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * try
 * Done.


 * Remove both commas and maybe change "and that she would also take" to just "and take"
 * Done.


 * Premiership
 * no need for this comma
 * Fixed.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Did 14 October reverse many of the policies or Jeremy Hunt? Consider changing "October, who" to "October. Hunt"
 * Done.


 * Remove the comma
 * Done.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Maybe
 * Done.


 * Political positions
 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Remove comma
 * Done.


 * Remove the commas after "relations" and "minister"
 * Done.

@ - Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sammi Brie - Anything else? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will support. The copy has been cleaned up. (Note: Claiming for WikiCup points.) Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UndercoverClassicist
Much admiration for taking on a big, visible and no doubt high-maintenance article, though I'm not sure I'll thank you for digging up the memories of its subject. I'm afraid there's quite a lot here, partly because of the nature of the article: it's important that we get this sort of thing right and are seen to do so, particularly from an NPOV... PoV. Please do not take that as any sort of judgement on the quality of the article or your work: there's most definitely a path to Support for me here and I'm happy to work with you on the points below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Tim comment (separated for readability)
 * Christ, this is a lot. I'll do some tonight, some tomorrow. Watch this space. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist - At long last, I think I'm done with your comments. I've not responded to each one individually, so this is a catch-all reply to acknowledge that I've seen and actioned them. Have a look to see if there's anything I've missed or anything you're not satisfied with. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist? - Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: all handled and a well-worked article on a demanding subject. Thank you, Tim, for your forbearance with a lengthy and often nit-picky review. I think it's important that we get it right when do these "big" articles, especially BLP ones, and this one is a credit to the encyclopaedia and its nominator. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers, both for the massive chunk of your time you've put into this, finding new sources for your comments and finally for the support. That's the level of FAC commentary we should be aspiring to. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : given how little about the various cabinet etc ranks is codified, are we absolutely sure that demoted is a matter of verifiable fact?
 * It's what the news sources and Out of the Blue says, so I don't see why not.
 * Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : I'd give a month; otherwise, it's awkward to have year-less references to July and September immediately afterwards.
 * Done.
 * And now I understand... but I still think the double-May is clearest and so best. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : elegant variation, but sandwiched between two "Johnson appointed..." or similar, this reads as if she somehow did it behind Johnson's back.
 * Done, albeit with a bit of a split infinitive: "was subsequently given".
 * Not that split infinitives are a problem anyway, but this isn't one: nice fix. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : not quite clear if cuts to both borrowing and taxes, or additional borrowing to pay for tax cuts.
 * Fixed.
 * : any reason not to cut named?
 * Done.
 * : as she only has one, this would normally be bracketed with commas:
 * Done.
 * Per MOS:OVERLINK, we don't generally link current national capitals (Warsaw).
 * Fixed.
 * Consider specifying that Renfrewshire is in Scotland: perhaps "Paisley in the Scottish Borders"?
 * Tacked on "in Scotland".
 * : awkward grammatically with the I: suggest simply starting the quote a word later:
 * Yeah, why not. Done.
 * : contrasted to reads wrongly to me: I'd prefer contrasted with (as would Google Ngrams, but I'm not particularly sure.
 * Done.
 * : you apply to a college.
 * D'oh! Fixed.
 * : accepted by is, I think, best.
 * Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * : not sure the abbreviated form is quite encyclopaedic. As it's only the once, I'd spell this out in full; if we're going to keep the abbreviation, we should really gloss it earlier.
 * Fixed.
 * : covers a multitude of sins: can we be any more specific?
 * My elegant variation has failed to charm; rephrased.
 * : isn't ACMA the professional body, rather than the job itself?
 * Removed.
 * Why here but  in the lead?
 * Sloppiness. Fixed.
 * Suggest explaining that George Robertson is more than just a C&W colleague (somewhat per MOS:NOFORCELINK).
 * I had thought about that, but had no idea if I should have introduced his as defence sec or Lab peer or whatever; I've gone for the latter.
 * Yes, he'd had quite a career (and had fairly recently left as SecGen of NATO): as this article is about Truss rather than Robertson, I think you've done a good job. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * : the source seems to be talking specifically about toilets; does it expand that to enough breadth for the phrasing we have here?
 * Rephrased.
 * : reduce its economic dependency?
 * Done.
 * : suggest a rephrase to be a) more comprehensible to non-British readers for whom "the cost of living crisis" may not mean much, and b) more durable in a future time when, we hope, the phrase will have faded from the collective consciousness (compare "the war", which needs a qualifier now in a way that it didn't in 1946).
 * Fixed.
 * Now : a bit awkward with the plural crises: I think there was only one energy price crisis. Suggest "the rising cost of living and increased energy prices"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : does this actually exclude anyone? If not, would cut.
 * Very good point, although I worry that the readers would ask who it affected and if it excluded anybody.
 * I'm not sure they would: we would be fine writing "to cut taxes", and not being specific implies that it affected more-or-less everyone. Certainly, in the lead, brevity is a virtue to a much greater extent than in the body: this is quite a lot of words that seem to add little to the meaning. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : similarly: were they criticised before or only after the financial instability?
 * Err ... fixed, I hope.
 * It's still a bit unclear, though I think justifiable as long as both the criticism and the reversal followed the instability. If not, suggest something like "which led to financial instability and were largely reversed after widespread criticism". <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Trimmed.


 * : suggest giving a date in the lead, as this is a vitally important event.
 * Done-zo.
 * Could do with a year, as we haven't actually given a 2022 date yet. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done at the start of the paragraph.


 * : as this is a very partisan description, I think we need "what she/Reform/the lunatic fringe called the UK's 'falling competitiveness'" or similar.
 * Source isn't of any help here, it just says "urgent action to deal with Britain's falling competitiveness". Whether this is Cole and Heale talking, I don't know. Sorry about that (thanks for "lunatic fringe" by the way, that gave me a laugh. I'm in two minds about putting it in the article itself).
 * Could rephrase or could attribute: this seems like one of those cases where we have a source that doesn't have to follow WP:NPOV: sadly, that doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to do so, but does mean that we have to be a little cautious in using that source's material. Otherwise, has another (less supportive) source looked at her time at Reform? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pffffffft... I really don't know. Added "what Reform perceived as". I know. Not great. But the best there is.


 * : we don't currently have a Personal Life section, but adding one would fix the chronological and subject-matter awkwardness with this: a similar issue arises with her parents' divorce, which could be similarly solved.
 * I really don't want to, I'm sorry. "Personal life" sections are trivia magnets. Other similar bios, like Benjamin Disraeli and Neville Chamberlain don't have one either.
 * That's reasonable; I don't think there's enough here or elsewhere to really upset the chronology. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : colon after Greenwich: she only stood once in 1998.
 * Done.


 * : suggest "[Truss] said...", or simply.
 * Done.


 * : to the Conservatives, although to Labour would have been fine.
 * Done.


 * : don't local CAs select (at least finally) all candidates? If so, suggest cutting.
 * You're right, but kept only because it's mentioned further down.
 * Reasonable enough, particularly in light of "misled". <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Why but simply ? A slight rephrase to the beginning of this long sentence could clarify that all of these things were constituency matters.
 * Removed "Norfolk" and clarified that these things relate to her constituency.


 * On which, suggest rephrasing the title "Parliamentary career" to "First backbench period" or similar: it's currently not mutually exclusive with the subsequent "Ministerial career", but really needs to be.
 * Just changed to "backbencher"; I don't think there's any risk of confusion with her current era.
 * Agreed. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Would give a date for After the Coalition: previously is a little confusing here.
 * Contextualised.
 * Any reason not to swap the order of the two, so that she authors the book with these people, then they join the FEG?


 * : any reason not to be more precise? More generally, I'd expect some statement of what the group was here, rather than simply how big it was.
 * Added "Thatcherite", which is in the source (sort of) and is even in the Free Enterprise Group's article itself.


 * Wikilink NHS and perhaps job centre.
 * Done both.


 * : by the same authors?
 * Yes. Fixed.


 * : the first approach to hyphenation is correct: cut it in well respected.
 * Done. (by the way, that wasn't me.)


 * : the noun phrase is a bit clunky; who was over-relying on them, and was that a fact or Truss's opinion?
 * Fixed.


 * : explain where this epithet comes from.
 * Done.


 * : reads as a little redundant (some became PM!).
 * Cut.


 * : more natural without the the
 * Agreed.


 * : is this quite accurate (that is, were the Mail specifically aware that urban Norfolkites had no problem with Truss?) or are we giving the Mail too much credit: perhaps more a reference to Norfolk's association with (mostly sugar beet) farming?
 * I don't think the Mail was trying to imply anything about the urban pop or Norfolk's farming contributions or anything like that; you might be reading a bit too much into it ;). I think they were just mocking the mostly rural county.
 * Yes, I agree: in which case, needs to become something like "a reference to stereotypes about Norfolk being a county of farmers.".  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : what exactly does this mean, and contrast with? Do we normally expect the Tories to make passive campaigns?
 * Source says she was "a hardworking Conservative ... Truss certainly was an active candidate ... in public there was only praise for Truss's campaigning skills". I note that the source also mentions that the Yorkshire Post described her campaign as "Blitzkreig", which I hope is good enough.
 * Now that we've got that second quote, I'd cut active for brevity and to put the weight of the sentence on its Schwerpunkt (sorry). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : I'd lean towards cutting this as well, though that's in ignorance of what wait means here: do we mean ninety minutes of debate, or of awkward silence while... something?... happened?
 * Again, not sure about this one. I think ripping it out bleeding would fatally wound the rest of the sentence.
 * I'd cut to something like Certainly, I'm not sure about the current framing, which is clear that we have speech -> ninety minute wait -> result: does the source exclude that the speech was part of a ninety-minute debate/discussion?  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your phrasing looks fine to me, so I've replaced it with that, but replaced "debate" with "making their arguments".


 * : at present, a bit banal (this happens every election, whether or not the Tories actually win), but could rephrase to give a sense of the number of new Tory MPs.
 * OK, done.
 * Why "over 90"? We know the exact number (148 first-time Tory MPs, see here, p215), and it's quite a lot bigger than 90. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Was basing it on Cameron's majority, which was 96. Now fixed.


 * : comma after Association.
 * Done.
 * I can't see it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, because I forgot. Now done.


 * WL Eltham?
 * Done.


 * : crying out for a.
 * Fixed.


 * : her own, or Kwarteng's?
 * Fixed.


 * : this is a bit of a run-on sentence; I would try to compress and split it.
 * Done.


 * : I'm not a fan of false titles: either or.
 * Missed that one. Changed.


 * : a big place; was she any more specific?
 * She wasn't, no. Knowing Liz, she probably thought it was just one country.


 * : better as
 * Agreed.


 * : not quite grammatically: should be Truss was originally to be made a minister of state, but (before is workable in that situation but, grammatically at least, leaves open the reading that the original plan was for Cameron to change his mind).
 * This sentence really has been through the wars. Reverted back to its almost exact prior phrasing.


 * : better as a paraphrase, perhaps: "he gave her his phone number and offered his support"?
 * Yep.


 * Perhaps worth explaining about TB; at the moment, both Patterson and Owen look a bit like swivel-eyed badger haters.
 * Done.


 * : simply subsidies? Taxpayer in this context is slightly non-neutral: it has nice fuzzy connotations of saving people money, vs. for example government subsidies or state support.
 * Just put "subsidies".


 * : introduce isn't quite the point: suggest something more like mandate.
 * Done.


 * : cut elected, as unelected leaders (like Sunak) of majority parties are appointed PM too.
 * Done.


 * : simply held any of the Great Offices of State? I'm not sure what a "position in" those offices is, as distinct from the office itself.
 * Done.


 * : should clarify to the Queen's death, but in the event is almost certainly not correct (it means "at the time that X happened"). Do we mean "in anticipation of"? Not sure what the significance of Greenwich is here?
 * Done, fixed, clarified (divorced, beheaded, survived).


 * : this sentence sits a bit oddly and doesn't seem to say a whole lot: would suggest cutting.
 * Removed.


 * The quote from Truss's speech about HMQ is both slightly long and yet very much not the whole story. Is there a particular reason to choose that quote, or to quote at all?
 * I know this isn't what you've said, but I've lengthened the quote and put it into a block. Should justify its existence a bit more that way, and tell the story a bit more too.
 * Yes, I like this one. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : briefer as "a two-year cap of £2,500..."?}}
 * Done.


 * : I think this is a) the basic rate of income tax and b) stamp duty, in which case I'd reverse them ("cutting stamp duty and the basic rate of...") to be clear that there's no basic rate of stamp duty.
 * Yep, done.


 * : NI has previously been capitalised; why not here? Similarly, why LC on Income Tax, Stamp Duty and Corporation Tax, which seem to follow the same rule, whatever we decide that to be?
 * Capitalised. Given that National Insurance is all caps in its article, whilst income and corporation tax isn't, should probably be like that here too.


 * : this is a bit loaded; it's a phrase that doesn't quite mean what it says on the tin. Suggest reworking to contextualise the "warts and all" comment alongside the ongoing debate on Rhodes, Colston etc.
 * Can't find it in the cited source, but added context for the speech.
 * I'm still a bit uncomfortable with parroting her phrasing: to her "we shouldn't forget the British Empire" means "we should generally be proud of the British Empire and stop going on about all those genocides". In particular, the line "It’s time to dump the baggage holding us back" makes this rather clear. I'm not sure I have a great answer here but I do think that finding another source as to the conversation she was joining here would be helpful. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll admit I don't see the relevance of Truss's views on the empire. This seems more trouble than it's worth, and I've removed it.
 * This is the first time we've introduced Labour, although about their third mention.
 * Cut "the opposition".


 * : slightly ambiguous: did she instruct him on 3 October or instruct him (on 1 October?) to do it on the 3rd?
 * Fixed.


 * The box quote in the "Government crisis" shifts the left margin, which isn't ideal from an accessibility point of view.
 * Fixed.


 * : comma after opposition.
 * Done.


 * Given that this is a summary article, I think WP:NOFULLTEXT applies to Truss's statement: it makes up about a third of the section summarising our article on the entire government crisis.
 * I really don't know about this one. I see similar examples on Neville Chamberlain, and given that this is really the only good place to have the full text, I lean towards keeping it. We're used as a reference work, and we should probably keep the full version for completeness. NOFULLTEXT says "If out of copyright, shorter texts ... are usually included in their article". I get this article isn't Resignation speech of Liz Truss, but it is the appropriate venue. It doesn't risk the article being overlong and people can skip it if they'd like.
 * Very reasonable. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : see earlier comment on instructing Kwarteng.
 * Fixed.


 * : do I read this correctly that she first campaigned for the Tornados to be kept, then for them to be replaced?
 * I think she wanted the keep the airbase but replace the old fighters. Clarified.
 * Two thoughts: one, is that clear in the source, and two, if we want to keep the airbase but not the fighters, we can't say that we're keeping a Tornado airbase: need something like . <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Suggest rephrasing dualling to a more transparent and more international alternative (MOS:COMMONALITY)
 * I've no idea what that is; I hope the link's enough. Feel free to have a stab yourself.
 * Stabbed, but please feel free to unstab. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Your phrasing looks nice and slick to me. Was worried you'd shoehorn in an Americanism, which you avoided.


 * : we haven't actually said that Truss raised taxes (she could have borrowed the money).
 * ? "tax plan announcements" meaning the mini-budget.
 * Ah! I hadn't understood, as we haven't actually mentioned the mini-budget yet. Might be worth a look. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully resolved by adding "the", which makes a distinction between the EPG and the mini-budget.
 * Looking at this with slightly fresher eyes, I think the problem is that we've talked about the tax plan announcements as if the reader should know that these existed. I assume you've taken as implied or obvious that the EPG would require some sort of tax plan in order to pay for it, but that isn't spelled out and so leads to some confusion. Otherwise, are we suggesting that Truss already had the mini-budget "in the gun" on 8 September, but chose to delay its announcement to put the focus on the EPG? If so, I'd suggest starting this whole section with a few sentences setting out that Truss's planned response to the cost of living crisis had two components: firstly, the energy price guarantee, and secondly, the mini-budget, which consisted of tax cuts funded by borrowing, and that she decided to announce the guarantee first. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : I like this phrasing, but we previously used the more awkward if perhaps intuitive "forty pence in the pound" (or similar): suggest picking one?
 * Dunno. I enjoy consistency probably more than the next man, but I think we should be good if we've already established what "45 per cent" means. I won't object if you ask again, though.
 * I don't think this is really a problem, as such. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : who says that these ones were key (and that the others weren't)?
 * Removed.
 * Not yet. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another case of me typing here first and fixing the article second. Done now.


 * : commas, rather than semicolons, needed in this sentence. Could also be cut in two for the two different days.
 * Yep, done.
 * We're inconsistent, particularly here, on whether to follow a fronted date like that with a comma (we do for 10 September but not for 19 September). Suggest picking a lane: I'd use one but I know that User:Tim riley would dissent. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw one of Tim's edits castigating the "AmE-style comma". Picked most of them out now; retained the ones that are helpful, like "proved untenable, however, and on 7 July, he announced [...]".
 * Yes, where the comma'd-out bit is in the middle of a sentence ("periphrastic"), that's a different thing: most varieties of English would insist on both commas around however in that and similar contexts. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : excluding?
 * Done.


 * Capitalisation in source titles is a little inconsistent: most books use title case and most other sources use sentence, but Bogdanor uses title case except for the a, Diamond et al is very variable, as is Worthy and a few of the web sources.
 * Fixed.


 * : a difficult run-on sentence: in particular, the last part needs a work, as was is governing the whole thing, leaving us with the implies and was prompted a response. Suggest while rather than whilst when using in the sense of although.
 * Tweaked.
 * Would now amend It was received badly to The mini-budget was received badly..., as we've had a long sentence and somewhat lost that grammatical subject. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, done.


 * : it isn't clear here, but should be clarified, that the livestream started (quite a while) before her resignation.
 * Done.
 * : was it the livestream or the tenure that started a week prior? We could have a livestream, started the week before..., but I wonder whether we've buried the key detail here: that the organisers wanted to see if Truss would be able to remain in office before the lettuce went off. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * How about something like "which recorded a head of lettuce and invited viewers to speculate if Truss would remain in office long enough for it to go off?" I must admit I'm struggling to find a good non-BrE-specific way of saying "go off" ("go bad" is AmerE). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Tweaked - try "wilted".
 * That's perfect. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : not sure about the word heavily here: is it more journalistic than encyclopaedic? What (verifiable) factual information is it conveying that wouldn't be communicated with ?
 * When you look at the sources, it become evident that it was indeed "heavy" criticism. One of her classmates even publicly called her "a lying bitch who told lies about our school". Obviously I did not want to put that in the article, but you get the picture.
 * I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm questioning whether it's verifiable in our sense. Understand the desire to keep that rather vicious line out of a BLP article, but would suggest cutting the adverb. Perhaps "criticised as inaccurate" to clarify what their problem was? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : commas around Philip Hammond. Are we sure on the reluctantly which follows?
 * Done. Source says "Hammond folded" and that he "never knowingly opened his purse".
 * Happy with that. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : why again? She hasn't been criticised, in this article at least, for a while; again (!) my inclination would be to cut the editorialising and let the facts speak for themselves.
 * Done, although I reject that it is editorialising; she was criticised just four sentences ago.


 * : this doesn't strike me as a particularly neutral assessment: whose is it? More broadly, what is an economic department in this context?
 * An aide said it; clarified.
 * I'm still not clear on what exactly an "economic" department is. Appreciate that someone said it, but I'm not sure we can echo it unless we can make it comprehensible. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * Link and spell out EU on first body mention (an EU ban on...).
 * Done.


 * : this is punctuated as for speech, which transfers awkwardly into encyclopaedic prose. Two thirds should almost certainly be unhyphenated, but I'd suggest rephrasing to something like "labelled it a 'disgrace' that Britain imported two thirds of its cheese".
 * Done the first, but the quote is arguably too famous to bastardise.
 * It's a famous quote, but I'm really not comfortable using non-standard orthography to effectively mimic someone's style of speaking. It's analogous to echoing an accent in speech ("a spokesman for the Turnip Taleban said 'oi'm not very 'appy with 'er!'"), which is somewhere between unclear and offensive. MOS:CONFORM would have us turn this into standard orthography without comment: we've already added the useful context that her delivery was felt to be enthusiastic, and could add something to the effect that it was also seen as stilted. At minimum, we need the grammatically standard That is a disgrace. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done: still think it should be punctuated, which is how respectable publications like Britannica and The Times do it.


 * : an endash; should be a hyphen.
 * Done.


 * : fine if there's more than one; if not, comma after justice.
 * Done.


 * : a minefield for punctuation: is the comma placed there in a printed source?
 * Yes.


 * : cut the also, given that Faulks didn't (here) mention her lack of legal experience.
 * Done.


 * : do we know who actually gave that quote?
 * No, it was "a source close to Truss".
 * Which often means Truss herself, at least eventually, but you've said what we can from the source. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : simply 18-month?
 * Done.


 * : it's a great quote, but is it really WP:DUEWEIGHT in this place? I can see that Truss's selection somewhat undercuts it (are we suggesting that they chose a woman purely to rebut this accusation?). Separately, I think we need an and before "saying", as the quoted material doesn't explicitly talk about sexism.
 * Done the last bit; as this is probably the only time Catling will ever get to be immortalised on the 'pedia, I'm reluctant to banish her to "article history". If you insist though, I'll axe her.
 * Hm: do we have enough in the source for ? I can see the argument that the similarities/contrasts between Catling and Truss are important to this bit of the story, and it's useful to foreshadow how vicious constituency Tory parties could be to women accused of affairs, as Truss is about to be on the sharp end of that. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would like to, but frustratingly neither sources quite make the connexion.


 * Suggest very briefly explaining what it meant to trigger Article 50.
 * Done.


 * : I've made this point a few times, but whose quote is the second one?
 * Fixed.


 * : wikilink Divisional court (England and Wales), but I'm not sure you can talk about the DC vs a DC (hearing such-and-such a case) of the High Court. Suggest it might be better as.
 * Done.


 * : you can probably guess this one...
 * Fixed.


 * : comma before Gavin.
 * Done.


 * : I'm very uncomfortable about the word blackmailing in this (BLP) context, particularly given that blackmail is a crime and this would not be described by that crime.
 * Fixed, understand the BLP concern.


 * : wikilink Divisional court (England and Wales), but I'm not sure you can talk about the DC vs a DC (hearing such-and-such a case) of the High Court. Suggest it might be better as.
 * Done.


 * : you can probably guess this one...
 * Fixed.


 * : Truss's speech or Williamson's?
 * Truss's, fixed.


 * : dehyphenate (MOS:HYPHEN)
 * Done.


 * Comma off Sajid Javid and Jeremy Hunt.
 * Done.


 * : "plausibly" isn't quite the right word here: that implies that she was asking them if there was a reasonable probability of it happening, where she was asking them if it was a good idea. Suggest "credibly"?
 * Done.


 * : a very long sentence. Suggest a cut after courted media attention.
 * Fixed.


 * : a mix of EngVar: maths lessons in BrE, but strongly suggest mathematics in encyclopaedic writing.
 * Would still strongly advise lessons instead of classes in a British English article: are you particularly attached to the current phrasing? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, now done.


 * : I'm not sure that calling her such is quite right. Presumably, he called her "Elizabeth", but we've just said that everyone did, so that shouldn't be a surprise. On the other, we could be saying that he called her "Elizabeth" (in the sense of giving her the name), but as it was already her (middle) name, we'd expect that of her parents. It sounds to me like we're saying that her father started calling her "Elizabeth" rather than "Mary", and then everyone else followed suit, but I think a small rephrase is in order to really get that across.
 * Fixed.
 * Same problem, I'm afraid (if we're saying that she was known as "Elizabeth", we're saying that most people used that name on a regular basis). Perhaps "her father, a professor..., called her by her middle name "Elizabeth", which became her preferred name in early childhood"? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, think it's fixed now. Used "Liz" rather than "Truss" to avoid confusion with John Truss. Also semicoloned the following sentence with that one, as they are related.
 * I know it's her common name, but "Liz" reads as informal: I think she would be equally unambiguous and perhaps strike a better tone. Not a major issue. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 05:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : this quote really needs attribution: I presume it's Truss? "what she later called..."?
 * Her biographers, actually. Her bio isn't mentioned above, so might be confusing for readers, but it's up to you.
 * I think that one definitely needs attribution: presumably, her biographers didn't ask her at the time, so either this is retrospect in an interview or, more likely, they're guessing. One assumes she had other reasons to apply to Oxford: it would have been much more rebellious to join the circus. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Attributed. Using surnames seems to be the standard way of attribution in articles, even if the authors are never mentioned themselves.
 * Normally, we do that on second mention: it's customary to introduce them first ("her biographers, Cole and Heale"). Some writers would use their full names on first mention, but that's a matter of style. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 05:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : just is slightly editorialising: would cut. Given Hague's resignation, presumably this was viewed as a disappointment: can we say and cite as much?
 * Done the first; book doesn't say, really, and can't turn up many sources via Google.
 * See here p. 230: a nice quote "the 2001 election was disappointing for Conservatives almost everywhere, and particularly so in Wales." Less explicitly here p63 and 64, but a useful comment that Hague made a major hash of things and that Tories agreed as much. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * We should always be able to tell in the text who gave a certain quotation: it isn't clear, at least to me, who called the result "disappointing". This is a phrasing issue more than a substantive one: just needs a slight rework to clarify. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed, adding more to that sentence would make it way too long. I know "Bennie" wouldn't do, and "Following the election, which saw the Conservatives make a net gain of one seat and the resignation of the party leader William Hague after the result which, as the political scientist Lynn G Bennie explains, was "disappointing" for the Conservatives, Truss supported the former defence secretary Michael Portillo's unsuccessful leadership campaign" obviously isn't good either.
 * Happy with that: the other option is to split into something like  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Considered a disappointment by whom, UC? Jokes aside, now fixed.


 * Suggest briefly explaining what the A-List is (most readers will assume that it only means the general, metaphorical sense of being an "A-lister") per NOFORCELINK.
 * Done.
 * The list had practical/institutional significance as well as simply being a list of names, but I can understand the appeal of brevity here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this still need to be fixed? Ask only as it's not in the "Resolved matters" box.
 * If you're aware of the trade-off being made and happy that the article currently strikes the correct balance, I'm happy to consider this one resolved. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : better as . Is it worth clarifying for non-UK readers that those papers, particularly the Telegraph, would generally be expected to support Conservative policies?
 * Done both.
 * Now a false title: suggest Conservative-leaning papers like... <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * : this reads as if Clegg blocked the plan out of spite at being ignored, whereas he made it fairly clear that he was never going to allow them through.
 * Clarified.
 * I think we still have the same implication. Do we really need "angering Clegg"? Was our source really in a position to know whether Clegg (who is a generally mild-mannered chap) was angry, peeved, frustrated, or indeed emotional at all? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he was: the source has "enrage[d]" and "apoplectic". The Beeb says "Mr Clegg's spokesman said he 'remains to be persuaded' that changing the ratios, as originally envisaged by Tory education minister Liz Truss, was a good idea"; bit weaselly, but still implies that Clegg was not happy.
 * Those are indeed strong terms: seems reasonable to gesture towards them. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : recent is ambiguous (recent then or recent now?): suggest "2013 horse meat scandal".
 * Changed to "then-recent".
 * Not a major problem as such, but why not simply use the date? Then-recent is both more verbose and less precise. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Explain briefly what Flood Re is.
 * Done.
 * I'm afraid I still had to look up what a "levy and pool system" is (and whether it was somewhere to go in your chevvy to drink whiskey and wine). Isn't it fundamentally a scheme to provide flood insurance to high-risk homes? That would seem like the lead that we've somewhat buried here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Sorry to keep picking at this one, but insurance doesn't protect anything; it insures it so that its destruction is made good to its owner. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : deep cuts is a bit of a MOS:IDIOM and perhaps editorialising (as a little way above, what is the verifiable information distinguishing cuts from deep cuts?). This sentence could do with a rephrase for clarity: something like "cuts under the coalition government, which had been blamed for a drop in the number of prison officers and for rising rates of violence in prisons".
 * Source says the cuts were deep too.
 * Right, but the source doesn't have to follow MOS:IDIOM and we do; they're also not bound by WP:VERIFY, and we are. An encyclopaedia is inevitably going to have to make some content and stylistic decisions differently from the publications that we reference when writing it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, reluctantly. I still think we need to reflect the fact that Osborne's cuts were extensive: see this, this and this.
 * Extensive is better than deep from an idiom (and cliché-avoidance) perspective. I'd note that the Guardian makes no secret of being an anti-Tory paper and that the Law Gazette is published by the Law Society, which had a lot of skin in the game in relation to the cuts to the MoJ: I'm not averse to finding a source to say that these cuts were or are considered extensive, but neither of those would really pass the bar of neutrality required to do so. We'd really want something a bit more academic and dispassionate than a newspaper. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, simply giving facts and figures as they do in that article with remarkably restrained partisan spin: "Having sliced around £800m a year – about 10% overall – off the annual MoJ budget during the last parliament [...]": is not really at risk of being deemed a non-neutral source. I wouldn't cite anything stronger than that to any known to be left-leaning paper. If The Guardian said "Liz Truss is the worst prime minister since Eden", I wouldn't put in the article "", which would obviously be non-neutral.


 * : is he Hammond or Kwarteng?
 * Rephrased.


 * : can we be clear on whether this is e.g. recognising her name, or being able to recognise a photograph, or saying hello to her in Thetford?
 * Source only says "only 7 per cent or one in every fourteen people would recognise her on the street".


 * : not NPOV phrasing: the characterisation as regulations that [get] in the way of people's lives is ideological (and Truss's). Phrases like "what she called" are our friends here.
 * Fixed.
 * Perhaps more encyclopaedic as something like "criticising the amount of regulation in British [whatever it was - industry, life, poultry farming]"? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Noting that this has been done rather differently, but now superseded by another comment. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : grammatically, fits better as "blocked [their] pay".
 * Fixed some of the others, but maintain that "your" gives more of the threatening effect Williamson was hoping for.
 * It might, but it isn't grammatical: we've integrated the quotation into the sentence, so it needs to integrate into the sentence syntactically as well. Perhaps ? Essentially, we need to turn it into a quotation that stands alone grammatically. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : the usual. It sounds from what follows that this means "offensive" rather than "energising", but that's not clear at this point.
 * Clarified, but you're right: it was a bit of both, and by the looks of things really annoyed Downing Street. If you've ever seen The Thick of It, Truss got a very Malcolm Tucker-like response.


 * : I would hyphenate free-trade (it's the trade that was free, not the negotiations).
 * Done.


 * : is this notable? It would be surprising if a cabinet minister didn't post their official trips on Twitter.
 * The bio and Britannica point it out: "as trade secretary, Truss met with international business and political leaders, traveling widely and exhaustively documenting those trips on Instagram", and until she became PM, it was probably what Truss was best known for.


 * : can we phrase this more neutrally and verifiably (did our source ask all the farmers how they had felt?) via what the NFU leadership said in public and when?
 * Fixed.


 * : the with clause doesn't quite read as grammatical. Needs a bit of a rework: I'd also question whether she became closer to her family is really encyclopaedic or verifiable (who said?). Another part of me wonders whether we'd include the same in an article about a male politician.
 * Tweaked. Not sure what you're implying with regards to the "male politician" bit; I can add it to O'Leary's article too, if you like.


 * The link on "early 2021" breaks the principle of least astonishment for me: if we're saying that Biden's election is the important factor here, we should say so in the text.
 * Removed.


 * : comma after December. Who described it?
 * Done both.


 * : not the right phrasing: she had done it whether or not an election happened. In anticipation of?
 * Done.


 * : a National Insurance increase. Capitalisation on NI is inconsistent in this article.
 * Resolved a few days ago.


 * : I'd cut privately; by not resigning, she decided publicly too.
 * Done.


 * Any reason not to put a full stop after "Fall of Kabul"?
 * Sure, why not.


 * : perhaps worth a slight rephrase to clarify that she wasn't released at the UN General Assembly.
 * Done.


 * : another of these very psychoanalytical phrases, and perhaps an implicit criticism.
 * Fixed.


 * : the first British minister?
 * Nice catch.


 * : not quite grammatical: suggest before the invasion and during its immediate aftermath.
 * Done.


 * : the sanctions, not the leaders, so sanctions would end is slightly better.
 * Fixed.


 * : either comma after and or delete the comma after July.
 * Done.


 * : could cut if elected.
 * Done.


 * Suggest cutting the first "and" (currently after if elected).
 * Done.


 * : I'd replace she with [Truss] for clarity.
 * Done, why not.


 * : does LGBT include the T in this sentence? If so, is that statement simply a reflection that she's never had the chance to vote against transgender rights?
 * Rephrased.
 * On this page, I can't see that she's ever been called upon to vote on transgender rights, or indeed much on LGBT issues: the only relevant vote is that she voted in favour of equal marriage in NI. I think "has never voted against LGBT rights" is therefore a bit weaselly and too strong to hang on that single vote: would replace with a straightforward statement of what she voted for. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can cite They Work for You, though. It is a primary source after all. Simply put "she has voted for gay marriage but ...".
 * Did she actually vote for gay marriage per se, or only to extend it to Northern Ireland? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Source says voted for gay marriage. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As does Auntie (albeit with awful formatting). I think "voted to legalise same-sex marriage" would be a touch more formal and encyclopaedic, perhaps with a link to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013? If desired, you could add that she also voted to legalise same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland in 2019, perhaps linking to Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that she's presumably not going to be PM again, can we strengthen said that she would not visit... to refused to visit... or similar? Current phrasing leaves open the possibility that she went back on her word. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm always a little circumspect about Further Reading sections in FA: do either of those books have anything useful to say about Truss? If so, shouldn't it be in the article; if not, shouldn't they be elsewhere?
 * I don't own the books, unlike Out of the Blue (and Into the Red) and The Fall of Boris Johnson; they might be useful for some people, but I won't protest if they're removed.
 * That's exactly what this section should be used for, in my view: is there any way to access them via e.g. Google Books, Amazon previews or the Resource Exchange? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 05:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Books turns up dry for After Brexit, but does have Johnson at 10. From a skim, I see Truss is only mentioned in the second last page of the preview, regarding the NI Protocol. Doesn't even have the page number either. Not worth the faff, IMO. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@ - Regarding Johnson at 10, just managed to pick up a copy. Will put in some refs shortly. Also, the penultimate paragraph of the entire books reads: "To all the anonymous and meticulous writers of Wikipedia, thank you. We guess that more authors rely on your work than is acknowledged." Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Scott 2021 is now uncited.
 * Restate "Truss" rather than "she" at the beginning of a new section.
 * This is the fault of an edit-warring user (will not say who but is easy to find by looking at the recent article history). Fixed, again.


 * : commas:
 * Done.


 * Explain what the Institute for Government is.
 * Done.


 * : this is getting a bit too far into Truss's head for an encyclopaedia: bounced back in particular is a phrase that needs to bounce its way back into a newspaper article or stump speech.
 * Didn't like "bounced back" either, but was struggling to think of a good alternative. Now replaced.
 * Cliché is resolved but I'm still concerned about the extensive attempts to retrace Truss's inner mental state. Frankly, I'm not sure that anything in is truly encyclopaedic (the first part is unknowable, the second is fairly trivial). I'm not sure much would be lost if we simply started that sentence at "According to a Treasury worker...".
 * From the source: "demoted and demoralised, Truss took up her post on Monday morning, licking her wounds", "Truss was convinced by Baroness Shephard to dust herself down", "she wanted to be a team player ... she wanted to contribute as a minister", "the move [to chief secretary] shook Truss's confidence in her abilities", "she has a bounce back factor like Tigger" and "her confidence had been knocked a lot and she didn't really have anything to do". Important for comprehensiveness that we reflect this. I've rephrased it a bit, though.
 * It's important for comprehensiveness if we think the source had some insight here: otherwise, we're just repeating guesswork or fanciful reconstruction. At least officially, Truss had no involvement in Cole and Heale's book, and it's difficult to see how anyone else could have any authority at all to make such detailed psychological pronouncements. There's also an element of WP:NOT here: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so needs to be written like one, not like whatever its sources are (e.g., when our sources are newspapers, we don't adopt the stylistic and content choices that newspapers do). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Truss was interviewed by C&H for the book. Don't care enough—in fact, don't have the energy left—to die on this hill. Attributed and, hopefully, resolved.


 * : a few things here. Firstly, this affected prisons reads as stating the obvious if you know what the MoJ did (and affected is a bit weaselly: affected how?) I'd suggest a slight reemphasis to  However, there are four steps in this argument: 1) The MoJ budget was cut, 2) This meant cuts to the prison budget, 3) This caused a decline in the number of prison officers, 4) This made prisons more violent. It's not clear from the current phrasing how many of those are a matter of unquestionable fact (I'd suggest 1 and 2) and how many are a matter of popular or journalistic opinion (almost certainly 3 and 4). More generally, I'm very uneasy about a "was regarded" statement which is cited to a single primary and partisan source: if you try hard enough, you can find a newspaper arguing just about anything, regardless of whether the idea has any real traction outside its pages.
 * After carefully re-reading this, I believe everything to be addressed, and have included a rock-solid secondary source.
 * Happy here, assuming good faith on the source (unusually, Google Books doesn't even search this part of the text). Thank you for your patience with it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 05:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : comma off Philip Hammond; we only had one.
 * Done.


 * : are we talking about the pool system (only really explained in our Cambridge article, but Oxford does a similar thing) here? If so, I'd explain a bit: as we've currently written it, this sounds like something usual or some kind of mistake, but is in fact an eminently normal part of the process.
 * Not sure; sadly I was never accepted into Oxford nor Cambridge, probably because I didn't apply. Contextualised a bit.
 * My issue is with "instead listed as a candidate": that sounds like a mistake (and probably isn't accurate: pooled candidates aren't listed as candidates for anywhere, but picked up by the college that wants them). Do we have the phrasing from the source? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a change to "was chosen as a candidate": the same concern stands, and I'd really like to know how the source put it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably going to end up leaking the whole book soon:
 * "Summoned before the intimidating ‘five don grill’, in an interview process that ended up lasting days, Truss faced a barrage of eclectic political, philosophical and economic questions from the quintet of Oxford tutors. One of her challenges included writing an essay about Greek philosophy, about which she knew nothing. To her dismay, she was then pooled to the all-women St Hilda’s to be interviewed – a sign that the dons thought Truss wasn’t good enough for Merton."
 * Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect (I'm sure Truss would approve of the leaking) - pooled is the technical term for this process, so use that ("she was instead pooled to St Hilda's"), and link to the redirect Winter Pool. If you want, you could include a footnote to summarise the pool system (something like "Under the pool system, colleges can nominate unsuccessful applicants for consideration by others; these these candidates may then be accepted by, or "pooled to", a college other than the one to which they applied."). The second interview is a normal part of the process and happens whether you're pooled or not. It's not ideal that the redirect is currently Cambridge-only, but the systems are similar enough and it's quite possible that someone will write the proper article at some point. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. By the way, this FAC (159K bytes) is now longer than the article itself (153K). Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I bet the audio version will be longer than her premiership, too. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Briefly introduce Ed Vaizey: presumably, lots of other people had opinions about this speech: why name-check him?
 * Described by Cole as "ultra-Govite"; know by now you won't let that fly, so described him as a "Gove ally".
 * Slightly journalistic in phrasing: suggest . <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : blunders seems a very strong word for how we've described these so far.
 * Changed.
 * "Mistakes" is a matter of opinion: we should surely assume that she meant to say what she said, even if from her bosses' point of view it was unwelcome. Perhaps "feared she would be dismissed because of her unpopular comments on..."?
 * Changed.


 * : we've moved around Whitehall a bit, so I'd restate which department.
 * Done.
 * I don't think "the international trade department" is really a term that exists; would use the name, especially as it's practically identical. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed.


 * : the had makes the chronology awkward here. Had she already been doing this during 2020?
 * Not really, more of a 2021 thing.
 * OK, so should be cut, as it implies that the focus predated early 2021.  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gone.


 * Spell out United Nations on first use (UN General Assembly).
 * Done.


 * : two points of ambiguity here: was Thatcher photographed in Estonia, and was Thatcher both praised and mocked?
 * Rephrased.
 * It still sounds as if Thatcher was photographed in Estonia; the Thatcher photo was taken in (West) Germany. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * : you guessed it...
 * Annoyingly, Cole and Heale do they same: quote it without any real attribution.
 * We can't do that, unfortunately (another case where they don't have to follow the MOS and we do): on the other hand, it's a pretty common idiom and, given that we can't say who said it, little is lost by simply rephrasing it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : I'd cut strongly as ambiguous ("with conviction" or "with competence"?) and editorialising.
 * Have to disagree here: Truss did indeed strongly advocate for them.
 * How do we WP:VERIFY whether she advocated strongly or only ordinarily - what's the empirical, factual difference that could be objectively proved to someone who disagrees? Without getting too philosophical, there are plenty of true statements that are not encyclopaedic. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.* : another one that needs attribution for a real political edge: there were good reasons why the bureaucracy was necessary, at least from the EU's point of view. "Liberate" is similarly too loaded a word for us to use here in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Fixed. Removed "the" so that it implies only some of the bureaucracy was unnecessary.
 * Still not attributed: "what she called..."? Reads almost as scare quotes at the moment. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Digging a bit deeper, I assume they got the quote from her speech here "The bill will put in place the necessary measures to lessen the burden on eastwest trade and to ensure the people of Northern Ireland are able to access the same benefits as the people of Great Britain. The bill will ensure that goods moving and staying within the UK are freed of unnecessary bureaucracy through our new 'green channel'." Fixed.
 * Great work. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : MOS:FIGURES would like consistency here: '5 ballots', given what follows.
 * OK, although I was under the impression 1-9 are words and 10+ are not.
 * What's important here is that the MOS doesn't want us to move between words and figures in the same chunk of text. As we have a moment later, and phrasing those in words would be hideous, all numbers in that section should be in figures.  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done per the MoS, but that looks, in my opinion, even worse.


 * : cut notably: if it were not notable, we wouldn't be saying it.
 * Done.


 * : we can quote "effectively dead" if Islam wrote it (and tut at the BBC's standards of prose), but otherwise, we should act on MOS:CLICHE and rephrase.
 * Done. On an unrelated point, wonder why Trussonomics is used way more than Johnsonomics or Sunakomics.


 * : of her, or of Britain?
 * Clarified.


 * : adjust per MOS:CLICHE.
 * It's not that bad, is it? "Tipped for promotion" IMO isn't an idiom, just slightly more descriptive language, like "scotch rumours" or "culled ministers". Nothing wrong with that.
 * All of those are idioms; as you say, it's not that bad if no good alternative can be found (though I'd strongly argue against culled ministers as likely to badly mislead a non-native speaker). What do you think of "widely expected to be promoted"? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still prefer "tipped for promotion" but I won't fight you on this. Changed.


 * Suggest clarifying who the ERG are, as the name implies that they have some connection with the EU (MOS:NOFORCELINK).
 * Done.
 * Still not really clarified, I'm afraid, and now an unhappy double bluelink. Suggest slowing the prose, breaking up some sentences and adding a brief explanatory clause. We could similarly do with introducing the DUP by where they're from and where they sit politically. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Almost there, but I do think it's parliamentary Conservative party rather than Conservative parliamentary party (it's the parliamentary bit of the Conservative party, not the Conservative bit of the non-existent parliamentary party). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * : this really needs attribution and an extremely strong justification, as it's BLP in a very prominent article.
 * Done.
 * I'm still not quite happy here, I'm afraid. Firstly, the sentence no longer quite works grammatically: she wasn't left out because Kwarteng thought Hammond was centralising. Secondly, the framing still takes as fact that Hammond was centralising, and then undercuts itself by acknowledging that this is only a very partisan opinion. Do Cole and Heale say that she was left out of decisions, or is that Kwarteng too? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. I tried switching around the "according to Kwarteng" but the sentence doesn't work that way.
 * Sadly, it doesn't work as it is, either. Suggest something like "was largely left out of decisions by Hammond, who was described by Kwarteng as..." <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Needs the comma before who, but sorted for all intents and purposes. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : given the long quote, reads much better as and would take
 * Done.


 * : per MOS:SEASONS, best to find another way of saying this.
 * Knew I'd get pulled up on this sooner or later. Source says spring too, doesn't give a specific month. MOS:SEASONS IMO makes very little sense; its rationale is "the seasons are six months apart in the northern and southern hemispheres", which falls apart when you consider that as this unambiguously takes place in the UK, saying "spring" is no different to saying "March", "April", "May" or "June" 2020. "[...] campaigned against such a deal in the northern spring" is absolute rubbish, pedantic, useless prose.
 * It would be. Sometimes, we can't avoid it, though there are other problems (when exactly does summer start, for example? If you ask a schoolteacher, the Summer Term is April-June...). I think we might be in the best place we can be: "during the first months of her tenure" might work, but is very slightly OR. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still prefer "spring": a Norfolk paper seems to pin the timeline at May 2020: see this, this, this, and most explicitly this.
 * If there's evidence for "May", I'd go with that, as long as you're happy that the evidence holds up. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : does do so mean to meet Lavrov or to meet Lavrov in Moscow? Presumably the former, in which case I would change it to "meet him".
 * Actually the latter: expecting a copyright strike soon, but: "In early February Truss travelled to Moscow to meet her counterpart Sergey Lavrov: the first time a British minister had travelled there since the Salisbury attacks in 2018".
 * OK, so we've buried the key point: it's not that she was the first to meet Lavrov in Moscow; she was the first to meet anyone in Moscow. That seems like much bigger news. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * Suggest briefly explaining the connection between the 1922 committee and the leadership election.
 * Done.
 * Not really, I'm afraid: we now have an uncited footnote which doesn't really make clear to anyone who doesn't already know that the 1922 committee was in charge of the leadership election. This book (p202) gives you a citation for the 1922 committee as "the parliamentary party's governing body", this one (p86) gives you "[the committee] has an eighteen-strong executive committee charged with overseeing the election of new leaders". Would suggest taking, rephrasing as needed, and citing the key bits from both. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : caps on both words, and on the preceding (Prime Minister) and following posts: they are titles, not descriptions (see MOS:JOB.
 * I'm a little uncomfortable with the way that quoteboxes have been used in this article. Strictly speaking (per the template page), their use at all in articles is discouraged; granted, there are plenty of FAs that ignore that advice, but they give huge prominence to a relatively small amount of text and therefore there are substantial WP:NPOV concerns around what we choose to give that prominence to. As a whole, they come across as slightly sardonic in hindsight, particularly the "be good at maths" pullout, perhaps the Shephard quotation and certainly the rather faint praise from Cameron and Kwarteng. The Walker quote is highly non-NPOV and I think would need a very strong justification of prominence in HQRS on Truss to stand where it is.
 * Walker quote slashed; it was emphasised in her biography, which was why it's there, plus I think we need to capture the zeitgeist of the Truss weeks. Maths quote incorporated into the text. I'd like to keep Truss's closer colleagues' quotes, if that's alright, as I really do think they provide some valuable insight.
 * They certainly do; I just think we need to be confident that they provide sufficiently greater insight than any other possible pullout quote to justify the non-NPOV effect. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Going through each of them:
 * Glover quote: Seems justified to me, decent insight and also pulled out at the start of the bio.
 * Cameron quote: Yeah, think it's fair, given that it would stick out a bit if put into prose.
 * Shephard quote: Am not overly attached to this one: gone.
 * Kwarteng quote: Given that they were quite close friends for over ten years, Kwarteng will have a unique insight; think this one is also fair.
 * Walker quote: like I said, I do think it's important we capture the chaos of Truss's very rapid collapse, and this is the go-to quote for that.


 * Consider a rephrase of "came under attack" per MOS:IDIOM (the Daily Mail didn't, as far as we know, send round people to shoot at them). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you propose? "Attacked" seems worse.
 * I'd always err on the side of the literal (as would the MoS): were criticised. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. "Criticised" twice in fifteen words is a bit repetitive: any good synonyms?
 * How about changing the first one to was accused of failing to support..., which is also slightly more neutral: current phrasing says that it's a fact that she "failed". <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.

Early life and education

 * Would delete : it's unnecessarily psychoanalytical for an encyclopaedia, and it's better to show that she was unhappy with this through her complaint than to tell the reader that it was so. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * : could do with a slight rephrase to be clear that Ashdown wasn't standing for the LDYS. Was he endorsing her at the time?
 * Fixed.
 * Do we know when that bid was? If so, would put this quotation there. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, source neglects to mention. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Another point, but comma off unsuccessful: she only had one unsuccessful bid. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Professional career
I'm not sure about the political/professional division here. Politics is a profession and she is certainly a professional politician; conversely, her time at Reform is hard to describe as totally outside her political activity. Suggest renaming to "career", rolling the two sections together and moving the second into the appropriate chronological place.

That's all for tonight @. Thanks for the comprehensive—and, from looking at 29,000 bytes added to my watchlist—stomach-churning review. Will address the rest tomorrow. Much appreciated, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest explaining the key arguments of at least some of her Reform publications.
 * Will get back to you on this once I have a source that tells me.
 * Nice work: mostly simply resolved, a few replies. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Political career

 * : suggest cutting the second clause: this section is already pretty long for something that ultimately had little consequence, and we can generally take as read that people discuss motions before voting on them.
 * On the fence about this one, might look back later if you want to push it.
 * Happy to circle back. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ministerial career

 * : this still needs a bit of work, I'm afraid: the issue clearly wasn't that they affected people's lives for the better. Nor did she, I suspect, say that regulation should not affect people's lives. Perhaps "arguing for reduced regulation in... [whatever it was]"?
 * Re "whatever it was": source doesn't say, merely that they are regulations which affect people's lives. That's it. Directly use Truss's quote, as, as ever with her, she cannot give a coherent speech to save her life and I cannot make sense of it without bordering on OR.
 * Hm - do we have the quotation in context? Could always go for "arguing for reduced regulation in the British economy" or similar, or "British life" if we think she's talking about smoking bans as well as food standards. I sympathise with the problem! <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * She's inconsistent about what it is she's attacking, but her main target looks like measures tackling obesity. Added another portion of her speech; not exactly jumping with joy at adding another quote though.
 * I would shed no tears over that quote if removed and paraphrased: unfortunately, Truss's incoherency rather infects the sentence it's been transplanted into. I don't think it would be OR to say that she was criticising government efforts to discourage unhealthy eating and alcohol consumption: it might be OR to say that she was opposing the "sugar tax" and minimum unit pricing. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. By the way, apologies for my reduced productivity in wiki-circles, had another busy spell last week. Will try to finish off your comments soon, as well as finishing my review of Temple of Apollo Palatinus. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * On another note in the same section: quoting anonymous sources is a little dangerous, especially in a BLP context. Do we have anything other than the unnamed Treasury worker behind this idea - put another way, can we be sure that we're not simply repeating workplace bloviating or gossip?
 * That quote seems fine, as he (or she)'s just describing how Truss went about things. Shows really that Truss just could not understand she wasn't able to treat everything like student politics, which really came back to bite her last year.
 * It does, if it's legitimate: however, since it's anonymous, there's no guarantee that it really shows anything, as we have no way to verify that the source had any knowledge or indeed was anything more than a figment of Cole or Heale's imagination. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Err... I don't think Cole and Heale were fabricating a quote, or the person saying the quote, or lying about the position of the quotee-in-question for almost no reason. I believe it's genuine.
 * I've no reason to doubt their integrity either, but AGF doesn't really go too far where BLP is concerned (it wouldn't in a responsible newspaper, either): we need something a bit more like "trust, but verify". This isn't a deal-breaking point for me at the moment, but I'm going to leave it here and chew on it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : I'm a bit uncomfortable taking Dominic 'Just Testing My Eyes' Cummings so uncritically at his word: he very much had an agenda in making this comment.
 * Changed it so Cummings' comment isn't treated as gospel.
 * This now takes us into Manual of Style/Words to watch: we've gone too far the other way. Perhaps "later wrote that"? More generally, you could contextualise (perhaps citing this article? that Cummings was an opponent of Truss's later leadership campaign and made these comments during it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done re "claiming". Not sure about the latter: bit synth-y, is it not?
 * Yes, a bit, but any time we do anything other than blindly follow a single source, we're doing something synth-y. The question is whether we're making a conclusion that's not supported by the sources. Understand the concern here and I think your solution is a perfectly good one. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * May be a bit of a tangent. Happy to concede, should you ask again.


 * : in lieu of means instead of: we mean in the wake of, but MOS:IDIOM would prefer following. Mounting pressure is a bit of a cliché and a bit journalistic, I think.
 * Fixed first, think the second is OK.
 * It's not a hard rule, but MOS:CLICHE has . There's also Orwell's well-trodden dictum to never write a figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The pressure was mounting on Johnson, and there's no shame on Wikipedia for expressing that. Calling a spade a spade more often than not is a wise thing to do.
 * Well, in a literal sense, it wasn't: it remained approximately 1 atm almost wherever he went. The problem isn't with saying that Johnson was under increasing pressure, or that Johnson's approval rating was falling and he was losing the loyalty of his colleagues: it's with finding a direct way of saying so. However, with that said, it's a common phrase and not a make-or-break issue on its own. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : This blurs the chronology. Would split after other and then write another main clause: Johnson considered... but decided against it...
 * Done.


 * : I'm not going to press for attribution here, as it's not important and probably not even a direct quote, but the it was is very much a MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps ?
 * Done.


 * : the comma is out of place here (should be after the brackets).
 * Comma removed (happened one year ago today too).


 * : we need this sentence to balance: we start with a noun phrase (its inclusion) and then go on to a participle one (permanently cutting...). Suggest "because it included [only?] temporary spending measures but permanently cut tax rates". Would then make a full stop and start a fresh sentence.
 * This is another sentence which has become a patchwork of multiple reviewers' ideas. Fixed.


 * Spell out IMF.
 * Done.


 * : fix false title.
 * Fixed.


 * : this is specifically income tax, isn't it?
 * Fixed.


 * : this links directly to one survey, and surveys are notorious for having a) a range and b) outliers. We should contextualise this statement more so that we're not putting more weight on the source than it can support.
 * Done.

Post-premiership

 * Caps on "Prime Minister" (MOS:JOB).
 * Isn't it the opposite? ").
 * This is the wonderfully-worded exception: Essentially, when you're talking about kings, presidents or popes in the abstract, it's lower-case, but when you're talking about a specific person or the title itself, it's capitalised. The table below is probably the most helpful thing: we're in the territory of, not  (notice the the).  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know: "Queen" not "queen" when talking about Elizabeth II, etc. Still think that "Prime Minister" looks really strange. The MoS, as a whole, is a really strange diktat. However, I won't protest should you change it yourself. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there's quite a lot of these in the article: suggest giving it a good look through with that table in mind. The MoS may be a strange master but it is one of the FA criteria: I'm sympathetic to a WP:IAR argument to break it if a specific situation dictates, but I'm not sure there's one here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think either we change all of them or none of them, not mix "prime minister" and "Prime Minister" for reasons too subtle for readers to understand. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The MoS makes a definite distinction, even if it's a relatively subtle one. I don't think we can ignore a MoS standard because we think it's too complicated. There are plenty of other words (see king and god, off the top of my head) where we use variable capitalisation and doing otherwise would be jarring to readers. To me, WP:IAR would need a rationale that applies specifically to this context: if the argument is that the MoS simply isn't right or simply isn't good, that discussion needs to be had beyond this article. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really want to push this I'll do it, even though (I warn you) it's going to look pretty disgusting. Will go through it with the table. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist - Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a really ugly one: I must admit I've got myself tied in some knots here. Part of the issue is the MoS phrasing : clearly, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is just that, but I'm not sure whether prime minister on its own clears the bar for formal (the FA Alec Douglas-Home thinks it does; the FA Richard Nixon does not). We then have e.g. Defence Secretary, which I'd argue is not the formal title (because the title Secretary of State for Defence exists), but then e.g. Minister for Equalities, which probably is the formal title because no 'proper' one exists. The one case it unambiguously needs to be capitalised is when someone is actually being addressed by the title, so I've put that one back into caps: happy to leave this where it is or for you to make a call on those questions. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would discount the Disraeli and Douglas-Home articles, as they use "Prime Minister" willy-nilly anyway. I don't get why "deputy prime minister" has been capp'd, though: isn't the formal title "Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"? And then, when preceded by "the" or "a", "the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom"? And then, for example, "Hello, Deputy Prime Minister!" when referring to, say, Dowden? Think that one should be lowercased, anyway. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * DPM was a mistake; I'd capitalised the titles in that paragraph, then had a second thought on the word formal, but missed that one. When preceded by the, should definitely be lowercase in most situations. Equally definitely uppercase when it's "Hello, Deputy Prime Minister", as it's then a substitute for someone's name and has become a proper noun. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rightie. Gone through the article again, thinking, for example, where I would apply "King" instead of "king": only found two examples: the Brady and Falconer quotes (Brady referring to Truss, Falconer referring to May). Otherwise, I think it's just too much. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

 * : a little unclear: it sounds as if she has supported Brexit, but changed her mind (against Brexit) in 2017.
 * Fixed.
 * Not sure it is: it's now ungrammatical (since needs to be followed by a present-tense or stative-perfect verb). How about something like "since the referendum, she has supported Brexit, and publicly stated in 2017 that she had renounced her previous pro-EU beliefs"?
 * Done, but not with "she had renounced her previous pro-EU beliefs" - bit journo, I think, so just "changed her mind"; I think the reader can infer what she changed her mind on.

Notes, sources etc

 * Some publication names are linked, others are not. In footnotes and bibliographies, the standard is for consistency: unlike in the body, we don't just link on first use.
 * Links added.


 * Book titles should really be in title case, as we've done for Truss's own books in the body and bibliography.
 * Done.

SC
Putting down a marker for now - will wait until UC has done their usual excellent review. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) My turn now, I guess. I'll make a start now. Would be just too mean to throw in an oppose (even for a joke) at this stage...? - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been gone over in some detail by several reviewers, so unless I make it clear, the following are suggestions, rather than obstacles to my support


 * Lead
 * "history of the United Kingdom": you've full named the UK, so you can have just UK here
 * Changed to "British history"


 * "She remains in the House of Commons as a backbencher." I would add "As at 2023" at the beginning of this, just to help the readers
 * Done.


 * Early life
 * "since early childhood": from, rather than since?
 * Fixed.


 * "a Conservative in 2010, ...Her parents divorced in 2003. In 1977 Truss": this jumping around jars a little – you could move to a more chronological run without problems
 * Not sure here ... understand it's not chronological, but putting in, for example, her parents' 2003 divorce in the middle of "Career" (fka "Professional career") might stick out a bit. Happy to concede, should you ask again.


 * It's "teenage rebellion" to go to Oxford, not Cambridge? And then she moans about ging to a college she didn't want? It's no bloody wonder I don't like or trust her!
 * I remember that during her campaign, people said we shouldn't have a PM whose name sounds like "mistrust" ... luckily, we didn't have her very long. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Done down to trade secretary: will be back shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Finishing off:
 * International trade secretary
 * "Truss's attempted US trade deal was accepted as futile": this is rather oddly worded – it suggests it the deal was accepted, but also says it was futile? Do you mean that Truss accepted her attempts for a new US trade deal were futile?
 * Fixed.


 * Foreign secretary
 * "the move was despite, according to the historian Anthony Seldon, Johnson finding Truss "flaky"." I stumbled over this a little. It would be better having "according to the historian Anthony Seldon" after the "flaky"
 * Done.


 * The Democratic Unionist Party is centre-right?? Its social and economic policies are not 'centrist' and I think just "right wing" would be more suitable
 * Our article variously describes them as right-wing and centre-right: chose centre-right as the milder term, but switched now. I know the DUP's a bit backwards on things like abortion and gay marriage, but also not big fans of the Tories either (eh, Theresa?).


 * Government crisis
 * "he was described as the de facto prime minister": I think it's probably best to say who described him as such (I did read one description that said he was the adult brought in to clear up the mess made by naïve children, but didn't say he was a DF PM)
 * Done.


 * Political positions
 * "Truss spoke against gender self-identification": was this also in 2021? If not, you may want to put a year on it, given the transitory nature of her views on many issues.
 * Yeah, 2021. On a related note, a French paper described her as "une girouette de fer", or "The Iron Weathercock". I was in France for a good portion of the 2022 leadership election, so that's a big part of what I remember from it. Watched quite a few of the debates and hustings too, madness how some thought she came across at all well.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the review. - Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D
I live in Australia, but spent much of the period that Truss was PM in the UK (on holiday) last year. I'd like to offer the following comments, focused mainly on the coverage of her period as PM:
 * I don't think that two almost-identical photos of Truss are needed at the start of the 'Premiership (September–October 2022)' section. It is well known that she only lasted as PM for a few weeks, so obviously her appearance didn't change.
 * A different reviewer has said that the images were "a nice touch", and I agree, although it's not one of my inventions. I'd like to keep it.
 * None of the other articles on recent British PMs have this, and I don't understand the rationale here. Photo galleries are discouraged per WP:GALLERY unless they're necessary, which I don't think is the case for this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but no other recent prime minister has only lasted 49 days either. Forgive me, but I can't say with all honesty that I believe two images is excessive.
 * I don't see the logic here. The purpose of these images seems to be to mock the subject of the article: I'm shifting to oppose due to concerns over neutrality. I suspect it won't be a particularly long-lasting oppose, but I really disagree with this attitude in any articles, and especially a BLP. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed. Please note that it wasn't intended to mock anybody.
 * Thanks, I'm moving back to comments and will continue a full review. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

\*The para starting with 'As the leader of the Conservative Party' notes Truss' appointments of key ministers. My understanding is that these mainly came from the same wing of the Conservative Party, which attracted commentary and criticism (including that a lack of diversity and the 'best and brightest' contributed to poor decisions being made) - it would be good to note this alignment.
 * Alright, done.


 * I'd suggest deleting the statement Truss made in response to the Queen's death. It doesn't really add anything, and may have been drafted years in advance as part of the extensive planning for this event.
 * It wasn't. Truss and her advisors wrote it in a hurry, and Truss was given some notes "written clearly in 1960".


 * The material on the death of the Queen doesn't note the impact this had on Truss' agenda; the famous 'lettuce' article in The Economist noted that the period of mourning had meant that Truss was unable to do anything substantive for several weeks of her short period as PM. The lead notes this, but without supporting citations, so it should be briefly covered later in the article with references.
 * Done.


 * "costing between 70 and £140 billion" - over what period (annually or two years?), and why was there such a huge difference in the estimates?
 * Two years: sources I have access to don't say about the latter.
 * The source cited says that is the estimate made by some company. The mini-budget papers  put the cost at 31 Billion pounds in 2022-23, and state that it wasn't possible to provide a longer-term estimate at this time. I'd suggest revising the text here. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "On 23 September, Kwarteng announced a controversial mini-budget" - the media coverage I've seen states that Truss was heavily involved in developing this set of policies; this should be briefly noted.
 * Done.


 * "and prompted a response from the Bank of England" - what was this response? (the impact this had on people should also be noted; I remember seeing people lined up outside banks as mortgage rates were suddenly being hiked)
 * Was linked per above discussion, feel that anything more may be a little out of scope for the biography on Truss. If you insist, I'll try something, though.
 * My memory of the news reports at the time was it was the interest rate increases that were the main response, and basically destroyed Truss politically. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it was more the parliamentary party which murdered her chances, rather than the angry hoi-polloi.
 * This comment hasn't been actioned. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now done.


 * "The mini-budget was criticised by the IMF... ' - I'd suggest also noting the public's views, which as I understand it were highly negative from the get-go
 * I'd like to, but I cannot find a single good source discussing it: not in the sources section, not from a cursory Google search, not from anything. It all focusses on the reactions of markets and organisations like the IMF.
 * looks useful, and other sources are discussed at September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * I don't see where. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "the public reaction was also broadly negative.[215][216][217]"


 * Two sentences in a row with semi-colons in the 'Government crisis and resignation' section leads to somewhat breathless prose; I'd suggest tweaking here.
 * Done.


 * The article notes that Truss ended up as the least popular PM - am I correct in thinking that she was unpopular with the public from the start of her term? I'd suggest adding a bit of text noting what the trend was.
 * Dunno, may be a bit non-neutral.
 * Why would that be non-neutral? There was quite a bit of discussion of this following the end of her prime ministership (e.g. that the Conservatives had picked an unpopular candidate, who then became even more unpopular). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that Sunak? "the Conservative Party faces a landslide defeat whether it picks Rishi Sunak or Boris Johnson as its next leader".


 * My understanding is that Truss has rarely attended parliament since resigning as PM - I'd suggest noting this if it's correct. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, really having difficulty finding a source that discusses Truss's parliamentary attendance in any detail.
 * I think I saw a story in The Guardian recently saying she'd only attended parliament a handful of times, but I'm struggling to find it; I may be mistaken Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (Chipping in): There is data on the votes she's attended and where she was absent here. Even though her appearances have been patchy at best, drawing any conclusions from it in the article would be OR. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ - Sorry for that. I've done some of the things you've said, but I apologise for the number of your comments I've not been able to execute. If you'd like to pursue anything further, go ahead; if you want to support, that'd be appreciated too, although I don't want to pressure you on either. Thanks for the review, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ - I think I've done everything I can now; please check to see if I've missed anything. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A few other comments:
 * The forced sizing of a few images seems odd: why is File:Merton College, Oxford from Merton Field.jpg at less than normal size and some other images expanded above normal size?
 * Merton: done to avoid egregious sandwiching. Others to make the images more readable. Now standardised.


 * Given this is a BLP of a fairly young ex-PM who remains in Parliament, a section on her post-prime minstership life and career seems in order, even though there's probably not much to note as yet.
 * Will do soon.


 * Why did Truss' parents move to Warsaw in 1977? Was this due to their political beliefs, or some other reason?
 * Source doesn't say, sorry.


 * "When Truss was 12 she and her family spent a year in Burnaby, British Columbia" - why did they move there?
 * Her father worked there.


 * "A classmate recalled Truss as being "very smart" and that she was "confident, chatty, [and] tried to get to know everyone"" - not sure what the value of this is given it's one person's recollection (in 2022?) of Truss aged roughly 18 many years before
 * Removed.


 * "she then complained to both colleges" - what did she complain about?
 * The she had been listed for St Hilda's. Clarified.
 * I'd suggest tweaking the wording here, as this remains unclear. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "In January 2008, after losing her first two elections..." this material would work better if moved after the material on these elctions
 * Will do tomorrow, as it is a fairly complex edit.
 * The edit hasn't improved things here - I'd suggest moving this to later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Truss unsuccessfully stood for election twice in Greenwich London Borough Council: for Vanbrugh ward in 1998 and Blackheath Westcombe in 2002" - were these positions the Conservatives had a realistic chance of winning? - particularly to put Alex Grant's comment in perspective. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea, source gives absolutely no information on the Tories' chances.

Pinging. Hopefully I can win you over soon. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * "In January 2013, Truss wrote a white paper" - this would have been written by the relevant department(s), and then released on Truss' authority. White Papers are major projects for the civil service, and ministers rarely write anything personally.
 * You'd have thought, but apparently Truss did write it herself.
 * Is that in Cole & Heale 2022? None of the other sources say so. If Cole & Heale did say that, I'd suggest tweaking the wording here to note that she "personally wrote" the white paper or similar, as this really is extremely unusual. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ - Made it clear it was Truss who wrote it: "in which she [...]". Thanks for the review, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "The press, including Conservative-leaning papers..." this sentence is a bit complex and would work better as two sentences.
 * Done.


 * "Truss was called into a meeting with the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg" - this makes it sound like she was added to the meeting after it commenced, which is a bit unusual (and would be quite embarrasing) for ministers: is this what the source says?
 * No. Amended.


 * "Truss was later remarked" - the grammar is a bit off here. More broadly, I don't see the value of quoting the assessments of Truss' staff of her, as these are obviously non-neutral (e.g. the staff member would have been intimately involved in the work they're praising). Can experts or political correspondents assessments be noted instead?
 * Removed.


 * "In March 2015 Truss was one of two cabinet ministers to vote against the government's proposal to mandate plain packaging for cigarettes" - did she do this as part of a parliamentary vote, or in the relevant Cabinet discussion? My understanding is that if it was the former she would have needed to resign given the principle of Cabinet solidarity.
 * According to Public Whip, it was a parliamentary vote: "11 Mar 2015, Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 ... Rebel"
 * British politics is wild: an Australian cabinet minister who did this would be sacked if they didn't resign first. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "and blamed for their rising rates of violence..." - the grammar is a bit off here
 * Fixed.


 * " them multiplication questions" - I suspect this should be "multiple questions", but a stronger term might be more appropriate (it's OK for ministers to question civil servants and their advice, but I presume that the issue here is that Truss was going over the top or generating low value work)
 * Ha, it really is "multiplication": Truss was very keen on quizzing employees on their maths.


 * "in particular, she attacked colleagues who she said should realise "that it's not macho just to demand more money"..." this results in a very long and over-complex sentence which I had difficulty understanding
 * Trimmed.


 * "; in Australia she made..." - this is a separate issue, so should be a separate sentence.
 * Done.


 * "Truss continued her documentation of trips through her social media" - this is a bit clunky, and it's hardly unusual for politicians to aggressively use social media: was Truss really unusual in doing so?
 * Yeah, Britannica makes it very explicit, and so does her biography; before 2022, it's what she was best known for in the UK: being media-savvy.
 * Sure, but the wording remains clunky. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Jumping in: what about continued to document her trips through social media? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Her early actions as foreign secretary..." - this sentence is over-long
 * Split up with semicolons.
 * Still too long. At very least split the bit about Estonia out into another sentence given it's on a somewhat different topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "became occupied with" - bit unclear
 * Fixed.


 * "The meeting was reportedly difficult; Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person"" - this implies that the failure of the meeting was Truss' fault. It seems much more likely to have been Lavrov's fault given he was running interference for the war Russia was about to launch. Note that Lavrov has been targeted with sanctions by the UK and many other countries for his key role in the war.
 * Source says that Lavrov apparently wasn't that influential at all regarding the war: "Truss left with the impression Lavrov was actually isolated from Putin's decision making and was nothing more than a 'super-annuated spokesman' ... it was clear from that lunch he is not very influential, he wasn't one of the key instigators ... he didn't know what was planned ... he was clueless". Nevertheless, I've made Lavrov's botched communications clear too.
 * I still dislike this text. Lavrov is not a reliable source on anything, and the new text further blames Truss. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * When did truss get married? Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Added.

. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nick-D - still here? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't had much Wikipedia time over the last week: I've replied above. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nick-D - Done all, bar the election sentence. Can't think of a good way to integrate it into text further down: any suggestions? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest not having separate 'Council candidatures' and ' Parliamentary candidatures' sections, but rather tweaking this into a single section on her candidacies before that in which she successfully entered parliament. This would solve a few problems with how the chronology is presented here, as it jumps around a bit. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and the support Nick-D: council and parliamentary candidature secs now merged in this FAC's 418th(!) answered request. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Andrew D.
There's a fundamental problem with this topic. FA requires topics to be reasonably complete and stable but the subject is still an active politician and so there is continuing fresh coverage of her activities and faction – see The Trussites are plotting their comeback, for example. Other politicians such as Churchill and Johnson have made comebacks and so it's not over until it's over. The result of next general election will be significant. And it will take even longer for the final verdict of history on her economic and other positions. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * (Chipping in) We already have FAs of living public figures - Bob Dylan, for instance. The stability requirement means that the article shouldn't be a work in progress and shouldn't be subject to edit wars, not that everything that is going to happen in relation to the topic has already happened. Otherwise, articles like History of evolutionary thought or Sustainable energy, about topics which are never going to "end" and are always likely to have updates and new developments, could never be FAs. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I take your point but this topic still seems too much of a work-in-progress and hostage to fortune. Three examples:
 * The article's talk page explains that "This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
 * The article says "Truss ... submitted in 2023 the list of her resignation honours which as of September are yet to be approved."
 * She was in the news recently, announcing a forthcoming book, Ten Years To Save The West. This is planned to be published in April.  The article says nothing about this and can't do much with it until it's published.  Perhaps there will be big revelations or perhaps not.  We will have to wait and see.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andrew Davidson as it happens. The comparison with Bob Dylan is slightly disingenuous, as he is 82 years old and not particularly likely to accomplish anything encyclopaedic in the future (and in any case, Dylan was "promoted" in 2003 when candidates received no scrutiny whatsoever). Whereas Lizz Truss is a young woman and may achieve much in the future (presuming a lettuce doesn't get there first, of course).  SN54129  11:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Question: it may sound a little pedantic, but FAs are based on passing the featured article criteria. Are you, Andrew and SN 54129, formally opposing on the basis this article breaches one or more of those criteria (and if so, which one(s))? Neither of you have opposed yet (and you may not feel like doing so - that is entirely up to you), but this is a moot point if not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Re. the criteria, my grandmother knows how to suck eggs! Since neither of us has opposed, what's the point in asking if we are opposing? I hope it's not also pedantic to point out that, at FAC, one may criticise without opposing.  SN54129  12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, linking to user talk pages doesn't activate the ping: see WP:ECHO. Only  Cheers,   SN54129  12:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware you don't have to oppose (indeed, I said you may not feel like doing that), and you are free to criticise, but the comments do not lead to any suggestions to change the article, so they are moot. All that matters on this page is whether the article reaches FA standard based on the criteria. If neither of you are going to oppose, the comments can be ignored and the review continue. If there are opposes, then it changes the nature of the page and whether others consider it worthwhile starting a review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment was tentative but if I had to chose a formal position, then I'd currently pick oppose. As a constructive path forward, I'd suggest tackling Premiership of Liz Truss first as that topic is not so open-ended. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds over this as I normally stick to writing on past events and people who have died (with one exception), so I've opened a thread at FAC talk for wider input. (I'm still going to review the article anyway, but this is an interesting point that has reach outside the scope of this one review). - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@, @ - Not exactly actionable for the moment, I'm afraid. Of course, when Truss publishes her memoirs/leaflet/inane ramblings then I will attempt to incorporate the source, inkeeping with WP:SPS. If Truss loses her seat (unlikely, it is true-blue Norfolk) or her life develops and new scholarly analysis of her legacy and premiership is written, then I will update the article; I'm not going to sit back and watch it decay. I note that there is a precedent for this: Gordon Brown, GA'd in 2006(! - that was when he was chancellor!) George W. Bush, GA'd 2007, Obama and McCain were both FAs before the 2008 election had even happened; it was the same with Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth II became featured whilst still alive, the same story for Charles III's GA nomination. Truss will not be making a comeback to politics, and she has said that she has no ambitions for a Cabinet role; Sunak would be out of his nut to appoint her. So, as far as I see it, it will just be a case of incorporating new sources and facts as they appear, which will be infrequent (by the way Serial, some people I know would be flattered that you consider 48 to be "young", makes me feel quite a bit better about my time on this earth). Best, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (Of course 48 is young! Quoth the septuagenarian Riley). Unlike my dear friend SchroCat I am not in two minds about the point at issue. If an article, as it stands, on anyone, alive or dead, meets the FA criteria it deserves to be elevated. What happens thereafter (e.g. if per impossibile the main author fails to keep the text up to date), its status can easily be reviewed.  Tim riley  talk   18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At age 48, Churchill still had his years in the wilderness ahead of him and then went on to become PM twice. And now Biden is planning a second term at age 80... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Biden still holds his office, and a continuation of it isn't anything extraordinary. Churchill, despite the hash he made in Gallipoli, still had a good chance of becoming PM; something Truss, after her spectacular implosion, has no longer. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Churchill made a complete fubar of the economy (possibly to the same depth as Truss), in 1925, when he restored the gold standard. He was 51 at the time. It looks like (from the FAC talk page) that there is a consensus that BLPs are fine as FAs, so there is nothing actionable here, from an FAC point of view, at least, but it's an interesting point. My personal preference when doing an FA write-up is to follow the ODNB practice not to have an entry until five years after their death, but WP is a different beast to the DNB and it looks like this FCA should continue. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it could happen to Lazarus, it could happen to Liz? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Liz Truss is in the news again today. She's made a speech at the Institute of Government in which she claims that things would be better if her policies had been maintained.  And that the OBR was to blame for rocking the boat (note btw, that I started the article about the OBR and it's good to see it's still a thing).  The Guardian says that it was their coverage wot dunnit while the OBR is returning fire and Mark Carney is joining the blame game too.
 * So, clearly she's not going quietly and the forthcoming book will presumably continue in this vein. Until the dust settles, I still reckon that this is more suitable for ITN than TFA.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the objection. Jonathan Agnew, Tommy Amaker, Billy Bates, Theoren Fleury, Chris Gragg, Nikita Filatov, Iwan Roberts, Ian Thorpe, Fatima Whitbread, Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, Nancy Cartwright, Leonardo DiCaprio, John Oliver, Emma Stone, Lady Gaga, Katrina Kaif, Christopher Nolan, Kirsten Dunst, Cillian Murphy and especially J. K. Rowling are all examples of BLP FAs which will constantly need to be updated. If you want, you can go on a crusade to delist all of them; however, they are all extremely high-quality articles and meet each FA criterion. This "BLPs can't be FAs" attack line has no basis in reality whatsoever. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , although rather than using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I would simply ask which of the FA criteria this article violates. As far as I can see, he has yet to provide an example.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The formal criteria are 1b (comprehensive) and 1e (stable). Today's speech is not covered in the article and its impact will take some days to establish.  And there's clearly more to come. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need to cover her speech in the article, though. That is WP:RECENTISM. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

voorts
Staking a claim. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work. Just a few comments:
 * This sentence is (1) way too long, (2) has a few awkward constructions, and (3) has tense issues.
 * Fixed.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Shortened, but not with a full stop as "Truss attended West Primary School." is a really stubby sentence.
 * Shortened, but not with a full stop as "Truss attended West Primary School." is a really stubby sentence.


 * "Let down" about what?
 * Clarified.


 * I would, but I know Tim would be annoyed at me for introducing a false title. This goes for the other similar comments; apparently it's more AmE than BrE.
 * I would, but I know Tim would be annoyed at me for introducing a false title. This goes for the other similar comments; apparently it's more AmE than BrE.


 * Change "greater effort" to something like "more focus" (although I don't quite like that either; maybe you can come up with something better).
 * Done.


 * Get rid of the Oxford comma before the last item in the list.
 * Done.


 * This can be cut because that's already established in the paragraph.
 * Done.


 * How was it a Blitzkreig?
 * Clarified (with apologies to UndercoverClassicist).


 * I'd rather not do this one, sentence becomes a bit stilted without.
 * I'd rather not do this one, sentence becomes a bit stilted without.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Move this before the sentence it currently follows.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * See above.
 * See above.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * See above.
 * See above.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * first "making" should not be there.
 * Hangover from draftwork. Fixed.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * I would cut this.
 * You're not the first to ask. Done, reluctantly.


 * CPTPP should be Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. Remove the Oxford comma at the end of the same sentence.
 * Done all three.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * wikilink Eurosceptic.
 * Done.


 * Done (this is probably the most commented on sentence in the article: I think this is the fourth time now(!) ).
 * Done (this is probably the most commented on sentence in the article: I think this is the fourth time now(!) ).


 * It really bothers me that the Rs don't line up in her leadership logo. I know you can't fix that, but it's bad graphic design IMO.
 * If only that were the only thing wrong with her campaign.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done, another draftwork hangover: used to be "in the event of".
 * Done, another draftwork hangover: used to be "in the event of".


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * Done.
 * Done.


 * See above.
 * See above.


 * I'm not really that keyed into British politics, but it seems to me that § Political positions should be significantly expanded, with an explanation of specific policies she has supported from her earlier times in office to the present, for it to be comprehensive.
 * Will do.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do in a few hours, unfortunately time got away from me this morning. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support on quality of prose, with the caveat that I believe that the "Political positions" section will likely need to be expanded for the article to be comprehensive; however, I don't know enough about British politics to weigh in on precisely what more is needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Political positions" now expanded, thanks for the review. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship
As usual, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with adequate justification.
 * The time-layout of the first lead paragraph is somewhat unintuitive; the second to fourth sentences proceed in reverse chronological order. If nothing else, I would personally combine the last two sentences:.
 * Done.


 * I'm not really one to talk, but even I think that there are too many commas here. Perhaps the father's job could be moved to his introduction in the first sentence of the section?
 * Ha, your comments overlap a bit with voorts. I made an attempt when addressing his comments: please say if it still needs to be changed.


 * Perhaps join the first two paragraphs at the start of the "Career" section?
 * Done.


 * is this relevant?
 * Err, I think so. Provides some foreshadowing for what Truss is about to suffer.


 * Blitzkreig in what sense? My first thought was speedy, but how can a campaign be speedy? Maybe intelligent and taking the initiative, and not reliant on tanks/weirdly hostile to Poles and Belgians?
 * voorts overlap again. Now "active Conservative campaign".


 * "shortly after the following year's election." Month?
 * Annoyingly the source doesn't say, possibly because Truss wasn't documenting her affair's chronology and these things tend to be a bit hazy.


 * "promising potential candidates" fairly sure this is a tautology.
 * Fixed.


 * I would include the Telegraph's opinion on prices in the same sentence, and leave the Guardian's columnist to a separate sentence.
 * Added, and Guardian ref split off with semicolon.


 * Sajid Javid is mentioned thrice in the article, all with his full name, but the latter without a link. Is that intentional?
 * Yeah, didn't want the link again and people might've forgotten who "Javid" is; nevertheless, two thirds of the "Sajid"s are now gone.

More to come. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Honestly, this is an excellent article, so I feel I can support even without waiting for the amendments above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the image choice and positioning a bit odd. There are two official portraits from three years apart in consecutive sections—it's a bit disconcerting, and IMO one of them should be removed. Then you have no images from either her opening or resignation speech—I would definitely expect the latter to be included as what she is primarily remembered for.
 * "with the awkward, stilted delivery leading her to be mocked" is itself a bit awkward and stilted; I would suggest rephrasing.
 * "The cuts negatively affected the prisons, being blamed for their rising rates" is also awkward. I would cut the "negatively affected bit" i.e. "the cuts were blamed for rising violence rates in prisons".


 * @AirshipJungleman29 - Done, barring one point: a different reviewer told me that the previous images of her first and last speeches were non-neutral, so I'd taken them out; feel free to ask if you'd like them in. The same reviewer asked me to remove the "upright" param in most of the images, which I've now restored to address your concerns over positioning. Fixed the other things you mentioned too. Thanks for the review and your support. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You could consider replacing the quote box (though the quote is fairly famous) with a non-portrait image such as File:Prime Minister Liz Truss announces her resignation.jpg - this is a striking photo, with similar versions being used by the news media (the fact that no-one had time to sweep the leaves in the background tells an interesting story by itself!). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Media review by RoySmith

 * The first thing that strikes me is she smiled more when she held lower office :-)
 * File:Official portrait of Liz Truss (cropped).jpg I'm not convinced this is properly licensed. The permission statement on commons says This image, originally posted to Flickr, is currently not available on Flickr under the license specified on this page. However, please see English: All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated..  The image was downloaded from https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/52377585500, which states "Some rights reserved", which falls under the "except where otherwise stated" clause.  That links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ which I don't believe is acceptable.
 * A different version appeared on the Main Page in the ITN section after she'd resigned. Must've gone through a check then, so I've replaced it with that version.
 * I assume you're talking about File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg. The commons page for that says it was downloaded from https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss, which doesn't currently have the photo.  I tried looking in archive.org for snapshots from around the right time, but no better luck there.  So I'm not sure where that leaves us.  I will state that trusting that ITN must've done a proper vetting job so we don't have to doesn't seem like a powerful argument. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hang on, any reason why CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED isn't acceptable? We've followed everything there, i.e. we've attributed it and it's non-commercial. Looks above board to me.
 * The original image is licensed for non-commercial use, but our commons page asserts that it's under OGL 3.0, which allows commercial use. We can't re-license an image with fewer constraints than it originally had.  RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED also doesn't allow derivatives, so our crops are contrary to that license. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed the photo back, hopefully fixed now with correct licensing. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I had to change it back because the licensing was already correct. Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official portrait of Liz Truss.jpg. This work was previously nominated for deletion based on 's concerns but was kept. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuinely don't know what I need to do anymore. The change looked fine to me; would be a lot simpler if UGWA had uploaded it in the first place. If it's correct as is though, fine. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty I feel your pain. It would seem that I accidentally stepped into a licensing minefield that I'm not really qualified to navigate, so I'll defer to people who understand this stuff better than I do. RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Jumping in - the OGL allows us to "adapt" the information, and cropping would certainly be covered by that: cropping an image is pretty universally held not to meet the standard of originality/creativity that would be required to create a new copyright, so any crop of an image is governed by the same copyright rules as the original. If we can show that the original image is covered by the OGL, we ought to be OK. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is this the same image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a crop of the same image (facial expression is identical and earrings reflect in precisely the same way): theoretically, therefore, a crop of that one to Truss's face would be under the OGL. Technically speaking, ours is a crop of the "mother" image: again, technically speaking, the UK government don't have the right to release their own crop under OGL unless they also have the right to (and do simultaneously) release the original, since they are covered by the same copyright. There would seem to be at least an overwhelming presumption that the image we're using is OGL. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 05:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * File:Elizabeth truss2014.jpg I'm unable to verify the license because the cited page does not have the image on it. I found a snapshot from 2014 of that page in archive.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20141110164640/https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss) but the image isn't the same.
 * It's a crop of the same image, surely that doesn't affect the license at all?


 * File:Official portrait of Elizabeth Truss crop 2.jpg Much the same as the above; it's reasonable to AGF that this is an official portrait and covered by the PDS license but I can't verify that.
 * It is an official portrait, see this.


 * File:Foreign Secretary Liz Truss visits Moscow Russia (51875320408).jpg This appears to have an acceptable license. I took the liberty of uploading a new version with the exposure adjusted.
 * Cheers.


 * File:Prime Minister Liz Truss chairing the first meeting of her Cabinet.jpg As above, this was downloaded from twitter.com. It's reasonable to assume it's covered under the OGL 3.0 as asserted on the commons page, but I can't find anything that verifies that.
 * According to The Guardian, the photo was taken by Frank Augstein, and then published in the said tweet (or X?) by No. 10. Think that the license should cover that.


 * File:President Joe Biden meets with United Kingdom Prime Minister Liz Truss.jpg Downloaded from twitter. Again, presumably a work of an employee of the federal goverment, but I don't see anything that verifies that.
 * Taken by Stefan Rousseau, who is not a US government employee. Replaced.


 * OK, that's as far as I can get. I'm not an expert at these sorts of things, so it's possible I'm being unduly rigid on verifying the licenses.  So, I'll just leave this here and let somebody with more experience give it another look.  RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One more: File:Merton College, Oxford from Merton Field.jpg need alt text.
 * Done.

@ - Licensing alright now? Not to rush, just seeing if anything else needs done before you give the all-clear. Thanks for the review, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tim O'Doherty I know this isn't what you want to hear, but as I said above a couple of times, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm going to leave this to somebody else who has a better understanding of both the licensing and what FA requries. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith - Ah right, thanks. Sorry, I didn't clock your above reply: my bad. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we get an update on this? Everything looks fixed, justified or explained over to me, and the licenses seem good and problem images replaced: User:Nikkimaria, I don't want to add to what I imagine to be a busy schedule, but can you have another look to see if this has now passed? Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * File:Official_portrait_of_Liz_Truss_(cropped).jpg: given the discussion above I'm confident enough this is okay to pass it, but I'd suggest documenting some of what was discussed on the image page for future reference. Similarly File:Elizabeth_truss2014.jpg
 * Not exactly sure how to do that, so I've given links to the discussions there. Feel free to change it if I've done it wrong.


 * File:Official_portrait_of_Elizabeth_Truss_crop_2.jpg: source link is broken. Ditto File:Liz_For_Leader_logo.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Switched out both for archive links.

Ping User:Nikkimaria. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @: sorry to be pinging you as much as I have recently, this hopefully being the last time: I've done everything, I think, so could you, when you have time available, have a very last look over the images and give your stamp of approval (or not, if there are still issues)? Fingers crossed, we are within spitting distance of promotion. Best, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear any changes have been made to File:Official_portrait_of_Elizabeth_Truss_crop_2.jpg? Once that's fixed this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sh*t! Did the other version of the similarly named File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg instead. My mistake, now fixed. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Thebiguglyalien
I'll have the source review done within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Books and journals:
 * This article leans very heavily on Cole & Heale (2022). This is somewhat alleviated by the fact that some of its uses are coupled with other citations, but it's still quite a lot. Is this the only high quality biography of Truss that exists right now? I realize that this is a big ask, but I would strongly recommend finding another source, whether a book or a reasonably comprehensive journal article, that covers her life at least from 1975 to 2021 (you already have a good variety of sources for 2022, of course). Even without adding any info to the article, just another source for supporting citations to confirm some Cole & Heale statements would go a long way to strengthen this article's sourcing. Though if you do happen to see new info in another biography, all the better.
 * Is this the only high quality biography of Truss that exists right now? - yeah, sort of. Like others have said, will replace some sources when they become available. I note that 2 thirds of the article are non-Cole and Heale sources, which is a similar ratio to FA Neville Chamberlain, with 93 out of 248 refs going to Self 2006.


 * I don't like that Fit for Purpose is only cited to itself. Is it due if no secondary sources have mentioned it?
 * I could do a secondary source, but it would probably be Cole and Heale ...
 * That's fine. It's not like it's tilting the balance of the article by adding another citation. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually no, FFP isn't mentioned in C&H. Not sure about removing it though, as it does make the article more complete.

News:
 * Bond (2014): Title doesn't match the source's current title
 * Fixed.


 * Forsyth (2012): Dead link, dead archive link
 * Internet Archive doesn't work on this one, not sure if there's anything more I can do here.
 * Can it be removed or replaced? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed, same info is in the book anyway.


 * In full: Prime Minister Liz Truss... (2022): Should not be marked as dead
 * Fixed.


 * McAuley (2022): I get a tabloid-y impression from Liverpool Echo.
 * Unfortunately, we have no great sources on Truss's stance on LBGT rights. So, this is "best available", I suppose.


 * McGee (2022a): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * McGee (2022b): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Pengelly (2022): I don't know if this source is helpful. For the claim that it was criticized by former students, we're essentially analyzing this primary source of one instance to confirm it. If the other two sources already say it, then that should be fine.
 * Removed.


 * Perry (2023): Retrieval date is missing. But overall this seems like an opinion source used to cite a contentious claim, and I recommend replacing it.
 * I did remove it but it got added back shortly after. I doubt the reliability of "PinkNews" in any case. Removed, again.


 * Reshuffle at a glance... (2014): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Steerpike (2022): The Spectator is not considered generally reliable due to its opinionated nature, and I don't recommend using it to attribute Truss's beliefs.
 * Used a primary (but better) source.


 * Stone (2022): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Thomas (2022a): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Thomas (2022b): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Toynbee (2013): This is correctly attributed, but I don't know if this opinion piece is due at all. It's better to use sources that talk about the disagreement rather than the primary source for the disagreement.
 * Removed.


 * Walker et al (2022): Should not be marked as dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Wheeler & Francis (2022): Links to a different (updated?) article
 * Marked as "dead".

Websites and others:
 * Pullig & León-Ledesma (2022) – I'd want stronger sourcing for this claim.
 * Disagree here, sorry. I think this was recommended to me at PR as a "scholarly" source.


 * What makes Local Elections Archive Project a reliable source?
 * Replaced.


 * Wallenfeldt (2023) – I don't know how other editors feel about this, but I'm not comfortable with Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source at FAC.
 * Removed


 * On this last, see WP:BRITANNICA. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Later I'll look more closely at the text of the sources. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * One other note on formatting: Jones & Norton (2014) should have an edition number. It looks like the 8th edition was used.
 * Missed this one when answering the others. Fixed. Also an opportunity to ping you. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks:
 * Allen (2023) – I don't see where it supports Balmoral castle.
 * Added ref.


 * Bogdanor (2022) – Checked all five uses:
 * Does page 566 support "with the number of votes cast for her increasing in each"?
 * Yes, the statement is sort of spread out across the page.


 * Page 570 only supports that Hunt reversed the tax-cuts, not "many of the remaining policies announced in the mini-budget, leading to further instability"
 * No, but the other one does: "With the negative reaction to this plan being immediate, Truss began cutting bits of the mini budget, but this only further increased the economic and political instability".


 * Page 570 only supports that she made the decision on 20 October, not the rest of the sentence.
 * Good spot: fixed.


 * Diamond et al (2023) – Checked all three uses:
 * I don't see that Sunak kept Hunt. Does Hickson & William support this?
 * Yes.


 * Does this source support that the plan involved borrowing, or is that only in one of the other sources?
 * No, Marsh 2023.


 * Kutllovci (2022) – This doesn't associate instability with Hunt's actions. Also, while this seems well-researched, I don't like that it's labeled "satirical" and uses a less academic tone, particularly for a source supporting a strong claim like this.
 * It associates instability with the u-turns, which Hunt was responsible for. Where is it labelled "satirical"? It calls Truss "unremarkable", but it's not like that disqualifies it from being a good source. Again, it was recommended to me at PR.


 * Marsh (2023) – Checked all five uses:
 * Page 120 doesn't support the quote. I'm assuming Cole & Heale does?
 * Yes.


 * Page 122 doesn't say she was the 15th PM under Elizabeth II.
 * Fixed.


 * Does Page 122 support "was to be funded by borrowing and was intended to stimulate growth"?
 * Yes: "The £45bn Truss-Kwarteng 'plan for growth' [...] £45bn of debt-fuelled tax cuts..."


 * Middleton (2023) – Checked all five uses:
 * Does Page 13 support 20 July?
 * Not explicitly, but it does go into detail about the vote. Backed up with another source.


 * I don't see Balmoral on Page 9.
 * Good spot again. Overlaps with other query, but fixed.


 * Mason (2014) – I don't see that this supports anything it's supposed to.
 * It supports the bits about maths in Asia.


 * McSmith (2014b) – Good.
 * Scott (2022) – Good.
 * Stratton (2013) – I'm assuming the other sources support "angered".
 * Yes, see my response to UC above: has words like "apoplectic".


 * "Ukraine war: Liz Truss says Russia sanctions should end only after withdrawal". BBC News. – Good.

. The news/web sources that I checked look okay. I have reservations about the citations to journals that I checked and how they're used. There are a lot of places where the sources don't seem to support what they're supposed to. It looks like about half of the journal citations I checked have some aspect that's not supported by the source. Now it's possible that I seriously missed a lot of things that verify the content, especially in the more technical areas. But I don't know that this article can pass a source review without a serious reworking to ensure that the WP:text-source integrity is spotless. It has to be assumed that other sources, including Cole & Heale, have a similar ratio of unsupported claims. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I was just very unlucky you picking the sources you did: you used pretty much all of the "bad" ones. I was very careful with Cole and Heale: I reread it every time to made sure that it was supporting what it was meant to, that it was the right page, etc. Thanks for the review, hopefully all fixed now. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's obligatory that I have to say "ideally there shouldn't be any 'bad' ones". But soon I'll go through again and do a few more spot checks and see it holds up. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, ideally not. But we're all human, we all make mistakes; for example, not citing the Balmoral claim because it was such a simple fact. Looking forward to your further analysis. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

All right, you've justified much of what I listed, and you fixed the few minor issues. I also haven't found any copyvio or close paraphrasing.
 * On several of the book sources, I noticed that the editors are listed as the authors. If the chapter is written by a different author, then the author and the chapter should be included in the reference as well as the editors.
 * Are there any where the chapter author is different from the editor? Not being glib, genuine question.
 * Aylott & Bolin (2020), Bennie (2002), and Jones & Norton (2014) are the ones I noticed, but a check over all of them wouldn't hurt. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done: you got them all anyway. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I also want to ask about Bale (2023) in further reading. What's its relevance to Truss?
 * Looks at the leadership of May, Johnson, Truss and (so far) Sunak: I don't have it, but could be interesting for others.

More spot checks of book and journal sources:
 * Aylott & Bolin (2020): I'm confused as to what purpose this citation serves. It's cited in the footnote defining the 1922 Committee, but I don't see any definition on this page.
 * Here? There is. Page 212? We could broaden it to 202 though, where it is slightly more explicit.
 * I see a mention, but as someone who had never heard of the 1922 Committee, I still have no idea what it is after reading that page. Citing it to 202 as well should work. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Bennie (2002): I can't view this page through Google Books, but the previous page indicates that this is about results by country, not the whole UK election. Is this assumption correct?
 * Yes and no: the country bit continues, but sums up the national mood in the Wales section "disappointing almost everywhere"; there's a link in the "Resolved comments" section of UC's comments, if you want to look there (you can Ctrl+F "230").


 * Fall (2020) – Good.

Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 13:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that BUA: done most now. Shortly before your comments, I went through a chunk of the article and didn't find any discrepancies, just widened the scope of one of the book refs to make it a bit more "solid". Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien - Think everything should now be fixed. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Spot checks didn't turn up any copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but Earwig identified two phrases that should be reworded:
 * "During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy"
 * "Truss denied she had failed to defend the judges"
 * There are no other copyvio or close paraphrasing issues in anything else I checked, and the text-source integrity issues ended up being justified or easily fixed. This should be the last step. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass source review. Any potential concerns have been explained or addressed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks biguglyalien. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

 * "in her last year at the university, she resigned from the LDYS." Is it known which year this was?
 * 1996 was her last year at uni, but I'm not sure whether it means the "school year": 19951996, or just 1996.
 * Me too. One assumes some time between November 1995 and July 1996 is meant. But a reader has to read the following sentence to gain some idea of when is meant, and even then doesn't know which year. "However, by November 1995, Truss had become critical of the Liberal Democrats, as she "realised the Tory Party was saying quite sane things"; in her last year at the university, she resigned from the LDYS.[22] By 1996, Truss had joined the Conservative Party." → 'However, by November 1995, Truss had become critical of the Liberal Democrats, as she "realised the Tory Party was saying quite sane things".[22] By 1996, Truss had resigned from the Liberal Democrats and joined the Conservative Party.' would seem to actually convey more information. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Dunno. I'm not wedded to that prose, and as it contains the same information (Truss leaves the Lib Dems in 1995/96 and joins the Tories in 1996), still without disambiguating the year she did actually leave, I'm leaning towards keeping the existing version. They're both equally understandable, and the reader can infer the basics: Truss becomes disenchanted with her party sometime around the end of her education, and joined the Tories either the year or year after. We've already said that she "graduated in 1996". Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I dislike phrasing which requires a reader to have read and be able to recall previous prose to be fully comprehensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The information is only five short sentences before and the date she joined the Conservatives is immediately after. I get that you'd do it differently, but, in the words of a different reviewer, "I'm me and you're you". The information, I think, isn't going to be lost on readers, especially when it carries the same information as before. If you feel that strongly though, go ahead and change it and I won't stand in your way. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "a Chartered Management Accountant." Why the upper-case initial letters? Similarly for some of "as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party", "held various Cabinet positions"
 * Re CMA, is a position from this organisation; not sure whether we should abandon the caps, but I've erred on the side of caution and kept them. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and ConLeader are both per MOS:JOB. "Cabinet" per what is most commonly used in POLUK articles, like "Parliament". I had a discussion with Tim r about this in August: here.
 * Many, even most, organisations like to capitalise things important to them. Their preferences, even if copied elsewhere, do not override the MoS. Surely we would say "the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants" but "a chartered management accountant". Or, arguably better for readers unaware of what "chartered means in this context, 'a fully qualified management accountant' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "including an "impassioned" speech from Truss". The MoS states "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
 * Fixed.


 * Infobox: why is her father named and not her mother?
 * Isn't that parameter for notable relatives? I.e. people with their own articles? Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * I cannot find this in Template:Infobox officeholder. Is it in some other policy? (I am not aware of it, but am not a biography expert.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My reasoning was based on this line in Template:Infobox person: . Not a policy, but still a decent rule of thumb: Priscilla Grasby has no article. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Infobox instructions carry a fair bit of weight. For some reason that instruction is not included in the instructions for the infobox you used, but you make a good case. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "she called for reform in several policy areas including childcare, mathematics, education and ..." Is there some way of indicating that she advocated for the reform of mathematics in the context of education? Otherwise she comes across as even more of a fruitcake than is justified.
 * Changed to "mathematics in education"; that seems to be what irked her most, so should be justified in the lead.


 * Reference 201 does not link to a citation.
 * Dammit. Fixed.


 * Why no publisher locations for Aylott et al, Bassett et al and Bale?
 * Will look in soon.
 * Done: two UKs and a Switzerland.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Optional: I would be inclined to add the splendid note 3 to the lead, or you are liable to get endless quibbles and even changes from Medieval history nerds. Such as myself.
 * Tried to by naming the refs, but efns are a different breed than NoteTags, so I'm not sure how to repeat it without creating two identical notes; feel free to have a stab yourself. (By the way, endless quibbles? Have you read this FAC?) :)


 * Why does the article not state how long she was prime minister for? (49 days) You give this for Canning. And state it in the lead.
 * Subject of debate on talk last year. 49 full days maybe, but resigned on her fiftieth day. I'd say 49 (or possibly 44, when her government became a lame duck) but the consensus is the pedantic "she was prime minister during fifty days". Put "fiftieth".


 * The Merton College image created a sandwich at most settings I tried. Move it down?
 * Got rid of the sidebar instead, the navboxes do fine on their own.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Re your edit summary, this is not a review (that would be quite a bit longer) just the main points from a coordinator pre-closure skim, mostly of the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The MoS, in WP:HOWCITE says "Citations for books typically include ... place of publication". This is usually understood to mean the "place" the publisher gives on the title page, rather than the country that place is or was in. Why are you using the country? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Watch this space. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply removed them all. Consistency in the style of referencing comes first and I can't see that the locations are essential to our readers finding the book in question. Some, like Aylott, give a tangle of street names and buildings. No way that I can see to maintain a style consistent with the others. As always, feel free to have a shot yourself. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine.


 * Ok, thanks. Looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)