Wikipedia:Peer review/United Kingdom general election, 2005/archive1

United Kingdom general election, 2005
A noteworthy event in the United Kingdom (of course). What do you think this article is missing? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done these changes myself. Deus Ex 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Sort out the position of the Lib Dems in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section. Officially, they did have ambitions to become the govt, not just make gains from Lab/Con (even though some Lib Dem politicians admitted they had little chance of becoming the govt).
 * 2) "Many seats were contested by other parties". This sentence and the rest of the paragraph are too vague. Explain the situation in Northern Ireland, and then the situation of the parties like the UKIP and Green, and then parties like Health Concern, which only have one candidate.
 * 1) "During the period between the announcement of the election and the actual election itself, all of the parties embarked on intensive campaigns to win voters over". This paragraph requires expansion. It is too vague and imprecise at the moment-e.g. "all of the parties".
 * 2) Nothing yet on the issues of the campaign.
 * 3) "Formation of the new government" and "New party leaders" could be merged and expanded in a new section, perhaps called "Aftermath of the election". Deus Ex 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added the results of most of the minor parties, but there are still a few (which I have noted in a comment at the top of the results section) for which results need to be sourced. Warofdreams 11:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To me it seems like there are too many statistics and not enough prose. As mentioned above the article very much needs a section on issues. It also needs a fairly substantial section outlining the course of the campaign, its major events and turning points. For instance the leaders debate is not even mentioned. Something about the various campaign strategies and techniques should also be added. - SimonP 14:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with SimonP :ChrisG 17:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your point, but there should be some logic in the statistics presented. For instance, at the moment it gives the results of nearly all (but not quite all) parties with over 1,000 votes - it should be all of them.  I'm not suggesting adding any new statistical sections. Warofdreams 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This has excellent, brief statements of fact. It covers the election fairly, with detail, and it does not stray from the election itself. However, I would like to see more descriptive language used (ie. prose per SimonP above). Descritive transitions, in particular, would be useful and help the flow. The first 'Seats in Scotland' paragraph did this well but lost me in the predicted and actual results. I, also, believe the article could use some context in the form of the political campaigns. It could use a section, or an entire article, on the campaign issues, themes, and events. The expenses of each party (when they become available) can shed light on who was yelling really loudly and who was just silently protesting. -maclean25 03:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a section on the impact of the election on the parties. The election has changed the electoral landscape in that the Liberal Democrats are within reach of an equal number of Labour as Conservative seats at the next election. Also implications on the party leaders and Brown/Blair manoeuverings. :ChrisG 17:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)