Talk:British National Party: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:21, 21 September 2008

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

British National Party was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 23, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 25, 2008	Peer review	Not reviewed

Current status: Former good article nominee

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Politics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Unassessed

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties

Template:Controversial (politics)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Archive

Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) archived the talk page (old comments are here). I also think a fresh start on the comments page is needed, so we can have a fresh start in examining how to improve the article.

For my part, I'd like to suggest moving most the detail on the election results from the lead section into the election performance section.

Also, the "Opposition" section has lots of information which is related to the "Claims of repression of free speech" section - perhaps it should be moved, or the "free speech" part made a subsection of "opposition"? I'm not sure how to best do that. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a good place to start would be to wait for the independent Peer review to conclude and await for the recommendations. this way there would be an independent basis for discussion to start and would be focused solely on the content and structure of the article. It would also allow the discussion to be lead by policies and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the election performance - if it's moved, maybe have a sentence such as "the party has a seat on the London Assemby, and has consistantly been the fifth-largest party in other elections, though without holding any other representatives or power"? Free Speech as a subsection of Opposition is quite a good idea though. The main thing the article probably needs is more information about their general non-racial policies (especially the environment), and their responses to major events such as the credit crunch--MartinUK (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also improve the policies section

This article is obsessed with immigration and racail stuff, why not add their actual policies from in full detail? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.0.182 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little pat - their policies are all to do with immigration. On a more serious note - feel free to add stuff on their other policies, but not to the point that the 'ethno-nationalism' is downplayed, per WP:Undue Weight. --NeoNerd 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 17:35, 21 September 2008 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,549,186 edits m Signing comment by 88.111.0.182 - "→‎Archive: " ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:21, 21 September 2008 edit undo NeoNerd (talk \| contribs) 995 edits →‎Can we also improve the policies section Next edit →
Line 45:		Line 45:

	This article is obsessed with immigration and racail stuff, why not add their actual policies from in full detail? :) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.111.0.182\|88.111.0.182]] ([[User talk:88.111.0.182\|talk]]) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		This article is obsessed with immigration and racail stuff, why not add their actual policies from in full detail? :) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.111.0.182\|88.111.0.182]] ([[User talk:88.111.0.182\|talk]]) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: To be a little pat - their policies are all to do with immigration. On a more serious note - feel free to add stuff on their other policies, but not to the point that the 'ethno-nationalism' is downplayed, per WP:Undue Weight. --[[User:NeoNerd\|<b><font color="orange">Neo</font></b>]][[User_talk:NeoNerd\|<b><font color="red">Nerd</font></b>]] 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)