Wikipedia:Peer review/Not flash, just Gordon/archive1

Not flash, just Gordon


I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it from a stub and want to prepare it for GA nomination, with the intention that I nominate it once improvements have been made. This would be my first GA nomination.

Thanks, ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7
Overall, the article looks good. A few points caught my eye:
 * The article is relatively short and could be expanded a little. For example, discusses various alternative poster suggestions that could mentioned to show how the campaign was very much focused on the contrast between Brown and Blair. But you are probably more knowledgable about whether this makes sense and what other additions could be made. From what I can tell, the current article already covers the most important points.
 * David Stringer of NBC News said the slogan "[saught] to define [Brown] as serious and statesmanlike".: replace "saught" with "sought".
 * Writing about Saatchi & Saatchi's employment by Labour, Andy McSmith of The Independent and Andrew Pierce of the The Daily Telegraph said it was "another break" with the Blair era of the Labour Party as agency Beattie McGuinness Bungay, led by Trevor Beattie who worked for Blair in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 general elections, also fought for the contract but failed.: This sentence is very long. Maybe split it two shorter ones.
 * Brown wearing "a slightly rumpled suit" beside the advertising slogan[24] "Not flash, just Gordon".[25][26][27][28]: WP:OVERCITE
 * WP:EARWIG shows no copyright violations.
 * User:Headbomb/unreliable marks no sources as unreliable.
 * All claims in the article have sources.


 * In response to the points that you raised:
 * I've added info from that source and added info about the comparison between Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron, though I can't find many other sources about this particular comparison. I personally think that the article size is good for the subject. It's not too big but not too small either. I have added some content regardless.
 * Done.
 * Done.
 * I've combined three of those citations into one.
 * Thanks for your quick response to the peer review request. I think the article might be ready for GA nomination now, though I'm not entirely sure. What do you think? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would say give it a go. A more in-depth analysis might reveal further issues but chances are that they can be solved within the scope of the GA review. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok then, I'll be nominating the article and closing this peer review. Thanks for your help! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)