Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Front (UK)/archive2

National Front (UK)

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the foremost fascist parties in British history, one which was at its heyday in the 1970s. Given the current far-right resurgence across many Western countries, this article is particularly topical. It became a GA in June 2018 and then went through an unsuccessful FAC that ended in October. The main concern of reviewers at that time was the length. Since then, I have worked to make substantial cut-backs to the prose to get the overall length down, and I now hope that it might have greater luck in becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Don't use fixed px size


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg needs a stronger FUR, as does File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Verifiability: A sample of spotchecks revealed no issues of verifiability or close paraphrasing
 * Quality and reliability: The main sources are the same as those for the previous archived FAC, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
 * Formatting: There are no evident issues with formatting
 * External links: All links to sources are working. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comments
We're coming up on a month without any prose review or support for promotion. This will have to be archived in the next week if we don't see some more attention. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ping some of the editors who commented on the article when it was at FAC last time to see if they have an further thoughts and/or a desire to support the nomination this time around: ; ; ; ; . Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SN 54129
Placeholder; on this 15/16 April. Just got to dig out my diary from the battle of Waterloo :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "The ex-LEL faction were unhappy"—was unhappy?
 * You mention the midlands a few times but don't link; suggest linking EM and WM in the Voter Base section. And "midlands" in the "Leadership and structure" section should (I think) be capitalised. And that also could be linked to Midlands generally.
 * "passers by"—hyphenate.
 * Various mentions of upper/lower middle class esp. in "Profile" section; I think strictly this should be triple hyphenated as a compound adjective. I also recognise that it's pernickity n the extreme and probably just amount to stylistic prefence, so up to you. Although if only going with one hyphen, surely it's nested as "(upper middle) class"?
 * "the main issue that led members to joining the Front"—to join the Front?
 * "instead thinking of themselves as 'patriots'"— instead of thinking of themselves as "patriots"? And to address the duplicated "of", perhaps "instead of seeing themselves as.."?
 * "vote for the Front, and that the party"—not sure if the comma's necessary?
 * "the NF's actual voter base might not have significantly increase between 1974 and 1977"—increased.It's clearly testament to the thorough reviews previously garnered that with a near-forensic reading, in an article this size, I could only raise the issues above. And on the matter of size, although WP:LENGTH is an important guideline, comprehensiveness is equally so. And a subject such as this goes beyond the confines of just a political group; in the context of their effect on contemporary politics and society, and the resonance it continued to have even after its collapse requires careful—and full—coverage, which it's achieved here without any relapse of WP:SUMMARY. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Support
The article is quite long for a minor party, but offers an informative and interesting read. I'm bemused that fascism still has followers after the global war against the Nazis. These are of triviality, but do you consider removing non-wiki links in the last section (there are quite a few)? Also, I would like to see wiki links to publishers in the sources (Routledge, OUP, and so on). I'm quite surprised that this hasn't got much attention yet. Good luck with the article and all the best, HĐ (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HĐ. By "non-wiki links" do you mean the red links? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was referring to :) HĐ (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde
I think I listed most of my suggestions at the first FAC, but I think you haven't gotten to all of them yet; my major suggestion was about length, which has been reduced about 10% since the last time, but a little bit more couldn't hurt; see my previous comments for specific length-related suggestions. I'd be happy to support once those concerns have been taken care of. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies Vanamonde. I thought I'd responded to all of your comments on the last FAC. I'll go back and take a look. Thanks for you message. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Tentative support by Cas Liber
I've read this through a few times. Hadn't been aware of second nom until pinged as been a bit busy. Overall it's an engaging read and comprehensive. I agree that it's significantly larger than the usual upper size limit, but I can't see what should be chopped out or moved to a daughter article. Hence consider this a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I will keep an eye on this nomination Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack
Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
I put a request for quote on talk two days ago, that has so far been ignored. There are a number of instances in the article where the Front "refused" x, y or z; I would like to see wording from the sources that these were active refusals as opposed to ... they didn't respond etc. Also, this article is quite heavily WP:OVERLINKed; whenever one encounters things like God and World War II linked, there are problems, and that problem is evidenced by repeated linking of terms like feminism. Based on excessive length, Oppose; I can see no reason not to create sub-articles around the clearly defined areas of the Table of Contents that lend themselves to separate articles. I suggest retiring the FAC, creating two articles, and re-submitting those.
 * Apologies for the delay in responding to your Talk Page message; it's best to ping me to ensure that my attenton is grabbed. I saw the message earlier and have now responded. Unfortunately I do not have direct access to those two sources at present (I use books from the library quite a bit) so I can't provide a direct quotation for you at the moment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A paragraph begins with a reference to something prior ...
 * This is a conspiracy theory,[196] part of a longstanding conspiracist tradition ...
 * The article is heavily quoted rather than rephrasing in author's own words.
 * When the subject matter is particularly controversial (as it is here) I have generally found it better to quote directly in many places rather than paraphrasing things, so as to make it clear to the reader that these statements are the opinions of experts rather than the views of myself or other Wikipedia editors. That being said, I didn't think that the use of direct quoting was any heavier here than in most other articles, at least those on similar political topics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Has anyone accessed and reviewed the hard-print sources? Considering ...
 * Sourcing issue, sample:
 * The party ... supporting the reintroduction of Section 28 and the recriminalisation of same-sex sexual activity. (Pink News)
 * Sourcing party platform to Pink News, which has a pony in that race (not independent, unbiased)? Please have a look at Reliable sources/Perennial sources; a Featured Article should not need to rely on an opinionated source for a basic of the party platform.
 * I'd agree that Pink News is not independent or unbiased, particularly when it comes to coverage of LGBT issues, however no media source is independent or unbiased, so I'm unsure that it is fair to single it out for criticism. That being said, I have no firm opposition to that sentence being removed from the article should there be a clear consensus of editors that it is not a reliable source in this particular context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not going to delete text from an article while it is at FAC, so suggest you do the honors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I could keep going, but some of these samples are not particularly surprising here; I suggest re-working the article to deal with length, sourcing, over-quoting, and excessive linking, and I'd like to see a third-party verify some of the sourcing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll endeavour to split off some of the sections into sub-articles. Hopefully that should help contribute to getting the word count down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've presently split off three of the sections into sub-articles and undertaken some heavy pruning too. I'll don the same for the other sections in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Continued oppose. The article is still 13,000 words which is still too long, the excess quoting can be dealt with via rephrasing and attribution (it is not all tricky as mentioned above).  And it is troubling that I cannot get a quote to back up text in the article. Considering that I have encountered POV in some of the main editor's past work, asking for one small quote to verify one small piece of text should not be too much to ask. Could you please provide?  It will surely be much more difficult for me to obtain those sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll try and get you those quotes when I can. As I said at the Talk Page, I don't have the books to hand and it may take me a while to get access to copies again. Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable for you to ask to see them and I will do my best to get them to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton
At last I've managed to read this article, having been somewhat hampered and put off by its length – I fear others may be similiarly deterred, and thus have some sympathy with Sandy's suggestion that the article be split. In general, with that reservation, I found the  article unstinting in its detail and coverage, and written with an admirable clarity. I have a few issues:
 * In the section "Tyndall's leadership: 1972–1982" you refer to Kingsley Read attaining the chairmanship and Tyndall's demotion to vice-chairman. Can you give a date for this, presumably some time in 1974? Read held the chairmanship until December 1975, which rather contradicts the assertion in the adjoining image caption that Tyndall led the party from 1972 to 1980.
 * I don't have access to all of the sources cited at this juncture right now, but will look into it. As for the image caption, there is a slight problem with it (as you note), which I shall now rectify. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the final paragraph of the "Sub-groups and propaganda output" there is some repetition of content: "RAC was revived with Skrewdriver as its flagship band; they had been having difficulty finding venues willing to host them..." followed a couple of lines later by "The RAC had difficulty finding venues willing to stage its concerts..."
 * There's a repetition of theme, certainly, but the two sentences are saying slightly different things. The first is saying that the band, Screwdriver, were having trouble finding venues, and the second that the RAC musical organisation was having difficulty finding venues for its gigs (which included many bands, Screwdriver among them). I don't mind removing the second mention (or the first), but we would lose a bit of information in doing so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first appearance of this terminology as part of my general copy edit of this section, in response to SandyGeorgia's suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the "Finances" section: "Branches also held jumble sales, totes, and social events..." Forgive my ignorance, but what are "totes"?
 * As I understand it, it's a form of betting on horse races. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This has also been removed as part of my recent cut down on prose length. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the "Membership" section there are no numbers given later than 1989. Is it not possible to include more up to date membership statistics?
 * I'm not aware of the group's membership being discussed, at least in academic sources, after that point. Indeed, given that the party has become particularly marginal since the 1980s, there is virtually no academic discussions of the party as it has existed since that point more broadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the "Explanations" section there is unintended ambiguity in the sentence that begins "Husbands instead believed..." I know this is referring to the sociologist Christopher T. Husbands, but it's a little confusing. I suggest that here you break the WP surnames convention and use his forename again.
 * Agreed and added! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing Midnightblueowl's response to Sandy's suggestion on splitting. One possible argument against splitting is that it necessarily involves some repetition of linking material in both articles, meaning that the total wordcount to be read will be more than the current 14,300, rather than less. An alternative approach might be to thin out some of the less important detail from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Brian. I appreciate you taking the time to read the article. I'm reluctant to start cutting it down and splitting it up, because I fear that it will be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. However, your point that the size likely puts off readers is well taken. If it the case that the article will only pass the FAC (either this time around or on a third nomination) if it is cut down even further, then obviously that is what I will do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - Given the depth and breadth of comments and issues raised, and lack of substantial support for promotion since my last check-in, I think it's best to archive this. Please negotiate the relevant issues outside of the FAC process and then re-nominate when appropriate. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll probably re-nominate in two weeks time. There aren't many things that need to be changed at this article. It shouldn't take long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)