Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949/archive1


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

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 03:40, 27 September 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: James500, Richard75 WikiProject Politics WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article as it is bears little or no resemblence to that passed in 2005 (reviewed and kept 2006); it fall woefully short of "modern standards" in unfortunately many respects. First and foremost, there are large parts that are unreferenced, and I also believe that the coverage is not deep enough for two defining reform bills in UK constitutional history. I have not taken the usual step of attempting to rectify such problems because they are simply too big: the talk page respondents cannot be expected to rectify such large problems within a sufficient timeframe. I hope to be able to improve the article myself over the coming months. (Notified above are those who have made more than 6 edits, and at least one since 4 years ago. The original nom, Morwen, is currently inactive.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: today, I re-added it to FAR (thanks to Dana boomer for assisting). My previous comments stand as appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment James500 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with the infobox. It only applicable to individual Acts. There were originally two. Someone has merged them in a manner that is not factually accurate.
 * I think that the best way to deal with this article is probably to split it into two (or three) parts, to be located at Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 etc, as I previously suggested.
 * WikiProject Law should be notified about this FAR.
 * The infobox has been fixed since I posted this comment.James500 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Law notified. It was because the two separate articles were too short, I think; certainly, I think the ideal solution would two articles that were long enough. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, a member of WP:LAW popping by – no previous involvement with the article, but interested in trying to keep it featured if I can. I'm a practising rather than an academic lawyer. I too am wondering whether this is something for one article or two.  My instinct is to say one article because the two Acts work as one.  E.g. when someone wants to find out (or link to) the use of the procedure to pass the Hunting Act in 2004, would they look under the 1911 Act (the starting point), or the 1949 Act, which modified the 1911 Act?  I would have thought that the infobox issue can be worked round, either by having a modified infobox for both in the lead section, or an infobox for the 1911 Act at the start of the section discussing that Act, and an infobox for the 1949 Act further on.  Anyway, is there any point in trying to work on the article until it is decided whether we want one or two articles? And what happened to the idea of raising concerns on the article talk page first as a mandatory first stage of FAR? BencherliteTalk 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy to have a look at it in a general sense, but at the moment the FA status is merely obfuscating the issue. I'm thinking two pages that are context-driven with mentions of the other, but it can all be sorted in good time. For now, the FA status should be removed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delegate note - Bencherlite, thank you for pointing out that the talk page discussion had not taken place. Grandiose, this step is mandatory, not optional. For now, this review is being placed on hold, pending a talk page discussion. Take it to the talk page, discuss it there for a week or so, and if nothing has moved forwards, ping me and I will reopen the review. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As Grandiose's concerns have not been addressed, this review is now active again, with actions (moving to FARC/archiving) to be taken based on the date in my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sourcing is terrible. Almost everything is primary or a bare URL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which primary sources you are referring to, but for the avoidance of any doubt, printed copies of Acts of Parliament and the transcripts of parliamentary debates in Hansard are secondary sources that are prima facie proof of what was said. In the case of an Act of Parliament (or rather the more recent ones), the only primary source is the authentic text that is kept, I think, in the Public Records Office. A printed copy of the Act is not a primary source. In the case of a parliamentary debate, a primary source would be listening to it in person. James500 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find my comments as to the article on the talk page of the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1a There are areas with numbered and bulleted lists that should be in prose. Always a good idea to have the entire article copyedited by an uninvolved editor.
 * 1c Many citation needed tags.
 * 2c Bare URLs, no uniform date layout, incomplete information.
 * WP:SEEALSO ...........Brad (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further comment by nominator. Some of the comments above are duplicating the work I already did, and even then only because of the need for due process rather than, well, just looking at the article for a bit. I copy my comments to here:

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On 1a): well written. My prose has come under fire before, so I'm not the best judge, but I think the prose could be improved considerably. The are for example, vague terms and sentences like "the Conservative opposition, many of whom were large landowners themselves" and "hundreds of new Liberal peers". Sentences like "One of the reasons for the Irish Parliamentary Party MPs' support for the Parliament Act, and the bitterness of the Unionist resistance, was that the loss of the Lords' veto would make possible Irish Home Rule (i.e. a devolved legislature)." lack clarity and a clear understanding.
 * On 1b) Comprehensive. I do not believe that the subjects as covered in enough depth. As two of the most important documents in British parliamentary history, there is a lack of thorough discussion of what was being brought it, how, the audience, critical reception (in the press, for example) and only a thin discussion present of the effects of the act on future events. Whilst this sort of detail would be suitable for a GA (perhaps) it is not comprehensive. The 1949 act is given one paragraph where I believe it is possible to write an entire article on it (which I hopefully will do).
 * On 1c) well researched. There are large areas left unreferenced, and the sources used are mixed, with some (eg. "Epolitix.com") not appropriately scholarly.
 * On 1d) neutral. Quite possibly. It's hard to form and opinion without a thorough text. For example, the weight given to Labour's plans in the 1997-2010 period may or nay not be justified.
 * On 2a) The lead. Not a poor representation, by any means; I don't think it's the main problem with the article. The weight on the 2004/5 events seems disproportionate, however.
 * On 2b) Layout. I'm not sure whether this is included under 2b, but I think the use of bullet points in the text could be improved with prose.
 * On 2c) citation style. Some of it could be improved, with different date styles and ways of referencing web pages used in the notes, as well as being a mix of 'notes' and 'citations'. Overall they use ref tags rather than inline bracketed forms, but are not in teh thorough style (ISBNs, dates, publisher info, that sort of thing) that are required by FA reviewers, if not by the criteria per se.

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, comprehensiveness, referencing, neutrality and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Delist per 1a, 1c and 2c. Little if any progress has been made. Brad (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Delist per 1b. James500 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist, still seeing a lot of [citation needed]s. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist fails 1c. DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.