Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/3

Margaret Thatcher

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Margaret_Thatcher/3&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No comments for over two months. Consensus that the article should not lose its GA status.  Further editing or improvement, with discussion on the talk page as appropriate, is of course always welcome. BencherliteTalk 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

This article has certain problems with hagiography, where negative reactions to her are minimised, but praise for her is covered in a lot of detail.

Thatcher was a very divisive politician, to the point of there being street parties on the night of her death. She is blamed for having devastated entire regions of the country by some. As a good example, Thatcher is blamed in many parts of the UK for having devastated communities, especially the mining areas of England and the Welsh Valleys. However, the section on legacy minimizes all criticism and claimed negative effects into vague hints.

It's clear this article at least has a lot of debate as to whether it can be neutral. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. In any case, there is going to be a flurry of editing activity over the next couple of weeks. I suggest that we wait to see what the article looks like after that has died down. StAnselm (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let the usual talk page negotiations run their course and if there is still a problem in a few weeks we can assess the GA status. AIR corn (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let us wait for things to settle. Adam accuses the article of bias not only here but at other fora, e.g., edit-warring/3RR, etc. Perhaps he also should give noticeboard complaints a rest and instead work on attaining consensus on the talk page? At very least, he should be citing high quality most reliable sources for his claims, which would help him gain support for inclusion. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also found two claims that went against the sources they were cited to, which is worrying. Fixed now, of course, but... Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, let's put this on hold two weeks. We should probably do a good reassessment once things settle down, as it'll be a far different article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been two weeks, it still has the funny censorship of negative information, and that seems stable due to editwarring to keep it stable. Delist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Adam Cuerden is talking out of his arse. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adam's vague hand-waving "hagiography" is somewhat insulting but is certainly not actionable. He has had two weeks to marshal his arguments and his sources, but has not so far come up with anything more than a vague feeling that the article should be more harshly critical of Thatcher. As Adam is not himself a reliable source, this opinion, while interesting, does not lead us anywhere useful. And ; how does that work exactly? I see no evidence of edit-warring there in the recent past. --John (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hagiography is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be voting. Also, I did provide sources. Remember you claiming that if they didn't say the event was completely unique in human history it shouldn't go in? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That you call it a hagiography doesn't make it one, unless you consider yourself to be God. You need to be specific, and stop vaguely waving your arms around. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't remember saying that Adam, because I didn't say it. A hagiography is an uncritical account of a saint's life. This article has a lot of well-sourced criticism of Thatcher's policies; that you consider it a "hagiography" only tells us about the POV you wish to bring to the article, it doesn't tell us that it fails to meet the GA criteria. You are not a source Adam. --John (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep due to vagueness of complaint. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)