Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Referendum Party/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017.

Referendum Party

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a minor British political party which stood in the 1997 general election. A single-issue party, it was devoted solely to Euroscepticism. After it dissolved, many of its candidates switched to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which subsequently helped to force UK membership of the European Union as a major domestic political issue and resulted in the 2016 referendum on the topic. The recently GA-rated article therefore provides an interesting slice of history for those wishing to understand the current situation that the UK finds itself in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brian Boulton
An interesting article – I'd completely forgotten about this short-lived forerunner of UKIP. I'll need to read it through more carefully, but for the time being I'll make a few comments on the lead:
 * In the opening paragraph: "Specifically, it wanted a referendum on whether the British population wanted to be part of a federal European state or whether they wanted the EU to revert to being a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Much clunking there, with three "wanteds" in the sentence. More importantly, the sentence muddles the question the party wished to put to the British people which, according to your wording in the main text, asked them to choose between being part of a federal state or "to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market".  The British people could not by referendum determine the nature of the EU; thus, if they voted for the latter option they would be choosing to leave the EU and return to a non-EU bloc  such as EFTA (of which it had been a member between 1960 and 1973).
 * Good points. I've changed the wording to "Specifically, it called for a referendum on whether the British people wanted to either be part of a federal European state or revert to being a sovereign nation that was part of a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Third paragraph: " psephologists argued that it deprived the Conservatives of a victory in several parliamentary seats, and thus helped Tony Blair's Labour to defeat John Major's Conservative government." You need to delete everything from "and thus helped..." Labour's overall majoriity in the 1997 election was 176 and its lead in seats over the Conservatives was 253. You estimate that the Referendum Party deprived the Conservatives of from 4 to 16 seats; even the higher total would scarcely have dented Labour's majority.
 * I was humming and harring about this when I put it in the lede. You have confirmed my initial concerns, so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "it was recognised as Britain's most successful minor party in recent years". I would dispute use of the word "successful", even if cited sources use the term. The party  put up more candidates and gained more votes than other fringe parties of recent times, but since none of its candidates came remotely near to winning a seat (only four achieved even 7 percent of the vote), how can it be called "successful"?  You could say "its performance was recognised as the best by a minor party in recent years" or some such wording.
 * I've removed this wording, but in its place I have added a new sentence to help retain some of the original meaning: "It stood candidates in 547 constituencies, the most that any minor party had ever fielded in a UK election." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Change link to Democratic Party
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a few oddities of language:
 * The British are a "people", not a "population"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "it gained 811,827 ballots, representing 2.6% of the national vote". We don't use the word "ballot" in the individual context, we say "votes". Thus: "it won 811,827 votes, representing 2.6% of the national total".
 * Also changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "it failed to attain any MPs in the House of Commons" → "it failed to win any seats in the House of Commons"
 * I was a little cautious that readers in countries without parliamentary systems might be unfamiliar with the term "win any seats", but I am okay changing it unless someone else pops up to endorse my concern. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add further comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * More comments from me
 * Lead
 * Add the words "shortly before that year's general election" to the end of the second paragraph
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Background and ideology
 * First line: the verb "transformed" used in this sense is transitive, and therefore needs an object. Thus "transformed itself"
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should very briefly explain that this transformation created a political union, membership of which involved some loss of individual national sovereignty. This was – and still is – the heart of the Eurosceptic argument.
 * I've added an additional sentence to this effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "a Member of Parliament (MP) elected " should be "Members of Parliament (MPs) elected", and you should delete the redundant "then"
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence beginning "It also claimed that..." is likewise redundant, as the same exact point is made in the following sentence which includes the Goldsmith quote.
 * I've rejigged the wording slightly so that we now have only one sentence rather than two, as opposed to simply deleting one of the two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Early growth
 * This is an unsuitable title, since the section covers the whole history of the party up to the 1997 election. I suggest "Establishment and growth"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The word "little" occurs twice in the first line. (One could be "limited")
 * I have replaced the second instance with "limited". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Third para: generally, paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun. You could simply delete the "Its"
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 3rd para second sentence: the "it" is ambiguous, and would should be replaced by "the new party"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * the words "for his party" after "endorsements" seem unnecessary
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1997 general election
 * 2nd para: close repetion of "The Referendum Party". The second could be replaced by a pronoun
 * Removed the second instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should also avoid "...candidates. Candidates...". You could merge the second and third sentences, to read: "... its selection of candidates, who had only one interview..." I'd also replace the words "before becoming the official party candidate" with the more concise "before acceptance".
 * These are good ideas. I've amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You might mention who carried out these interviews.
 * Unfortunately, it does not specify this in the RS we have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 5th para: "these positions" should be "this position", since only one has been mentioned
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "enter...enter into": the second could be replaced by "engage in"
 * Good idea, changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Another suggested sentence merge to avoid verbosity: "The electoral threat posed by Goldsmith's party was taken seriously among the Conservatives, among them Major, Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Brian Mawhinney and Michael Heseltine, who launched vitriolic..."
 * I've merged the two sentences as you suggest, although I have not followed the exact wording as I wanted to avoid a repetition of the term "among". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "putting forth": "putting up" is idiomatic
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Results
 * A minor confusion re deposits. In Brit electoral law a candidate's deposit is returned if he/she gets 5% or more of the constituency vote. You say that 46 RP candidates achieved this, but later: "42 of their candidates gained a sufficient number of votes that they had their deposits returned". Both figures can't be right. A further nitpicky point is that sentences should not begin with numerals (MoS).
 * Hmm, you are right - there is a discrepancy. I've double checked the two RS and the Wikipedia article does accurately relate the information contained within them. I'll try and delve a little further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some delving, and that has simply raised more questions. Carter et al say, quite clearly, that "42 saved their deposits." That would be supported by the data from the PoliticalResources website (here), which says that of the 547 Referendum Party candidates, 505 lost their deposits (which leaves 42). At the same time, McAllister and Studlar state that "There were only 46 constituencies where the Referendum Party's vote reached 5 percent or more", and when examining the list of Referendum Party results at our own article (Referendum Party election results), I can count 46 instances where the party secured over 5%. So 42 or 46? Perplexing. Perhaps, for some reason, there were four candidates who did secure over 4% of the vote but did not retain their deposit... are you aware of extenuating circumstances that result in such a situation? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this again in the morning – got to go to bed now! Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked, and the answer is simple: our article, and perhaps other sources, have rounded percentages up/down to one decimal place. In four constituencies where the RP percentage is shown as 5.0, the actual figures was slightly smaller: Cambridge SE 4.995, Havant 4.955, Richmond Yorks 4.957 and Tiverton/Honiton 4.999. This explains the discrepancy between 46 and 42. How you deal with this in the text is up to you – personally I'd amend the sentence cited to McAllister and Studlar to read: "The party's best results were in four constituencies where it achieved more than 7% of the vote." Or you could simply delete the sentence. But the statement that "The party gained over 5% of the vote in 46 constituencies" clearly has to go. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That explains it! Thanks for figuring that one out Brian. I have amended the McAllister and Studlar quote in the manner that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should state the amount of the deposit. It is £500 according to this
 * But was it £500 back in 1997? The PDF dates from 2009. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been £500 since 1985. This may not qualify as a RS, so I'll try to find something better. But it isn't a critical point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a reliable source that confirms the deposit was £500 in 1997. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. I've added a few words, linking to the reference that you provide, referring to the cost of the deposit at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest, can you provide any gender division between the 547 candidates? My instincts tell me that they would have been overwhelmingly male, since we generally are the more obsessive-minded. The information might exist somewhere.
 * I share your suspicions, and indeed, the list of names over at Referendum Party election results does suggest something of a sausage fest. However, the RS do not seem to specifically provide us with any breakdown of the figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My OR indicates that between 70 and 75 of the RP candidates were women – about 14% of the total. That's about par for the course in nineties terms, roughly in line with the Conservatives, who only achieved 19% in 2005, and as recently as 2010, 24%. But none of the reliable sources I've comsulted seem to cover this question, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Although failing to win any seats, they..." Better if you replace "they" with "the party".
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * A brief explanation of Goldsmith's death should be provided, as this was the reason why the movement disbanded so rapidly. He had been terminally ill during the campaign, and lasted a mere eleven weeks after polling day. His ODNB entry provides a source - if you don't have access I'll deal with this for you.
 * Good idea. I've used the ODBN entry to provide an additional sentence on his terminal illness and death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Other issues
 * The article is light on images, for obvious copyright reasons, with only Farage gawping in the bottom right corner. In view of Goldsmith's closeness to the Referendum Party – its sole begetter, financier and leader – it would in my view be justifiable to include an image of him in the lead, under a fair use rationale. I would strongly support this. I suggest you have a word with Nickimaria who is an image guru. See what she advises.
 * Personally I'm doubtful that we will get away with using such an image, but I'll drop Nickimaria a line at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Midnightblueowl, perhaps now would be the time (by the way, it's Nikkimaria, with two "k"s) as the main outstanding check here seems to be an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nikki, as this appears to be otherwise ready to promote, would you mind weighing here? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There, I'm done. I will see no reason not to support when these issues have been considered. I've much enjoyed this first-class article, a timely reminder of the nineties. it's been a pleasure to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Postscript: A candidate representing the "Referendum Party" stood in the Kensington and Chelsea byelection held on 25 November 1999, long after the party had disbanded. Details p. 268 here. I guess this was a rogue element and nothing to do with Goldsmith's party, but you could mention it if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a brief sentence about this in the "Dissolution and legacy" section. It's interesting, if perhaps fairly tangential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: There's a couple of points I'm waiting on, but the nominator seems to be absent at the moment. I will be away from wiki myself for several days after today, but I'll check in as soon as I'm back. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments Brian; if there is anything else then please don't hesitate to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: Excellent and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * I would encourage you to add ALT text for the images.
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * For the James Goldsmith quote box, there is an extra space between the citation and “1994”.
 * Well spotted! Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how currency is linked in articles (as it was never really necessary in any of my projects), but do you think it would be helpful to link the first instance that the pound sterling symbol is used in the article?
 * That makes sense. Link added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You typically include a short descriptive phrase in front of a person’s name upon their first mention, but you do not include one for James Goldsmith. Do you think one would be helpful, not only for clarity, but also for consistency? I would also include phrases for John Curtice and Michael Steed, again for clarity and consistency.
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This may be a silly request, but do you think it would be necessary to put UK in parenthesis following your first mention of “the United Kingdom” in the lead and the body of the article as you have done for EU with “the European Union”.
 * I was wondering this myself. I'll add the acronym in. Certainly, it can't do any harm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you think that you should include the link to single-issue politics in the body of the article (i.e. “a classic single-issue party”)? I have seen that the link is used in the lead, but not the body of the article.
 * Good idea. Link added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * At the start of the “1997 general election”, you use “the United Kingdom” in full while you primarily use “UK” throughout the article. I would recommend changing that instance to “UK” for consistency.
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please include the full title and link for MP (i.e. Member of Parliament) in the body of the article. You only use the full title and link in the lead, and you only use the acronym unlinked in the body of the article. I have received notes in that past that everything should be linked on the first mention in the lead and body of the article (and please correct me if those comments are not correct as I have seen some mixed responses to it).
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this list. Unfortunately, as an American, I have very little knowledge on this matter (or any political topic outside of American politics) so I cannot check for anything else beyond questions on prose. I hope that my comments help out at least a little. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to read the article and for offering your comments, Aoba47. I have responded to every one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my comments! This was a very interesting read, and you have done a great job with this. I really do need to learn more about world politics; maybe, one day in the future, I will work on a more politics-based article or list. I support this for promotion. If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Interesting article on a party of which I was probably aware but have long forgotten:
 * "which was experiencing high rates of unpopularity" I might say "which was becoming highly unpopular" or maybe "increasingly unpopular"
 * I've gone with "increasingly unpopular". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "a Member of Parliament representing Britain's Conservative Party" do MPs represent parties? Is that the proper term?
 * I've always thought so, although if you think that there is a more appropriate term then I would certainly be interested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Goldsmith's intervention in British politics has been compared to that of the multi-millionaires Ross Perot in the United States and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.[6]" It would be more effective if you could say "was" rather than "has been". Surely there were comparisons at the time.
 * On that I am not sure. It may have been that the comparisons were only made by later academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Its new headquarters was in London.[13]" I might see if this very short sentence can be merged into the one before or following.
 * Merged into the preceding sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "It also sought to attract the support" I would say "The party" rather than "It"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "the politician George Thomas," he was titled by then though I'm fine with it either way.
 * We initially gave his title although I presume that he is more widely known by his actual name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Goldsmith's party was the biggest spender on press advertising in the 1997 campaign;[32] it spent three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on press adverts." I would strike the last three words. It's implied.
 * I see your point, however I can also see the possibility of the latter half of the sentence being misunderstood that they spend three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on the entire campaign, rather than just press advertising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Goldsmith talking directly to the camera to promote a referendum." rather than the last four words, I would put a comma and "arguing for a referendum".
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You might toss in the date of the 1997 election.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, User:Wehwalt! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde
I reviewed this at GAN, and think it's a high-quality article worthy of promotion. I just have few quibbles over wording. Feel free to revert any copy-edits I make.
 * "The party's sole policy was for a referendum to be held" I'm uncertain if "policy" is the right word here: I somehow think of "policy" as applying to things you have control over. "objective"?
 * Changed to "objective". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "having greater political functions" tad vague
 * It's complicated, and to be honest I'm not really sure if it is best if the prose starts getting expanded at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you don't need to extend much, if at all: even saying "political authority" or "regulatory authority" or something like that would be better than "political functions."
 * I've gone with "political authority"; that works nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "that it resulted in increased German hegemony in Europe." Hegemony is a strong word here; control, perhaps? could also lose the "resulted in".
 * I've gone with "dominance"; do you think that that works better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, better.


 * I wonder if there is a link we can add to Perot's campaign at "Perot in the US"
 * I've added a link to Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 (wonderfully, that's an FA!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * May be worth adding a footnote to explain the three other colors in the election results box not mentioned in the caption
 * I did not really want to add too much on Northern Irish politics to the article, but I have now added a short sentence: "In Northern Ireland, where it did not stand, domestic parties took all of the seats." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay


 * "Much of this press coverage was negative" not entirely clear what the "negative" refers to here; the party, the EU, or the referendum
 * I've gone with "Much of this press coverage took a negative stance toward the EU". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we find a link for by-elections?
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * uncertain whether "adverts" is an accepted abbreviation or a colloquialism: it sounds odd to me, but that doesn't mean much.
 * "Ads" would certainly be an colloquial abbreviation but I am not so sure about "adverts". I could change it to "advertisements" if you think it important? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say "advertisements" would be better: "adverts" just makes me pause in my reading, which is ultimately what we want to avoid, right?
 * Sure thing; I've changed the two uses of "advert/s" to "advertisement/s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "making it the largest minor party to have ever contested a British general election." I think how you phrase it in the lead is better.
 * I've changed the prose in the body to match that in the lede on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it common to use "Labour" as a description for multiple party members: as in, "they are Labour"? Otherwise, the parenthetical (65 of them conservatives...) needs rewording.
 * Yes, in the UK it is. It's not very common to see "Labourites" or anything like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Link or explain "psephologist", perhaps.
 * I've added a link rather than an explanation because at this juncture ("analysis by the political scientist John Curtice and psephologist Michael Steed,") it would be very difficult to smoothly insert a description without it looking very messy indeed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I just realized the year is actually never mentioned in the last section, and I think it needs to be, for folks skipping to the section; maybe with GOldsmith's date of death.
 * Good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A worthy candidate for promotion. Vanamonde (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Curlymanjaro
As you know, we've a shared interest in Eurosceptic parties in the UK. This article is exemplary; just one point for you to think about:
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his speech to the 1997 Referendum Party conference, Goldsmith alludes to the group having previously supported membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (See here at 56:05). Perhaps this is worth noting? Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of this being mentioned in the academic texts, so we would probably have to rely on the Primary Source for this information, which I don't really know is a good idea or not. Given that the Referendum Party only had one policy (i.e. the referendum), I'm not sure whether EFTA membership was necessarily a policy or part of Goldsmith's own personal belief. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. Formats are consistent and accurate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Referendum_Party_Logo.jpg: we have rationale for a non-free image here, but I'm not sure this would qualify for copyright protection - I'd think PD-logo would apply
 * File:Goldsmith_in_Referendum_Party_Campaign_Video.png: advise against using that historic images tag - either non-free biog-pic or the non-free screenshot tag would be better fits. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki; I have amended both image rationales as per your recommendation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This FAC has been open for a little over a month, has had its source and image reviews completed, and has received four statements of support. Time to wrap it up? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: The free use image of Goldsmith is lacking alt text; I'd be grateful if someone could take care of this as all the other images have it. But that isn't worth holding up promotion for. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.