Talk:British National Party/GA4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I'll take this one on if you're happy with that ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. There are issues with the prose throughout the text. For instance, in the "National Front" section, you refer to "the split within the NNF"; do you actually mean "the split within the NF" ? A thorough copyedit is required.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section could definitely do with expansion to summarise the entire contents of the page; I am more than happy to help with this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. There are still sections where it is unreferenced.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Many sections go into to much detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I'm afraid to say that I am inclined to fail this once again; not enough has been changed since the article's last GAR, and I really think that this is a situation where the article should be split off into smaller articles (i.e. History of the British National Party) first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't fail it yet - give me something immediate to do, and I'll get to work on it. Jamesx12345 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, there is now a History of the British National Party. I'll get to work with the shears and add a few {{main}}s. Jamesx12345 19:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that the 2010 manifesto dedicates a very solemn page (46) to "Saving Britain’s Pubs" made me very merry. Jamesx12345 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work thus far; your edits are certainly appreciated and are improving the article! Nevertheless, I've decided to call for a second opinion on this one, given the controversial nature of the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If any more referencing is needed, just tag bomb it with {{cn}} and I'll get to work. The BBC News archives almost make the license fee worthwhile... Jamesx12345 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow[edit]

I think this is a great article, and very nearly at GA-level. The biggest issues are overuse of embedded lists (particularly the unbulleted list-like frgamented Breakaway parties section. One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be avoided where possible. I haven't read through the article in detail, but sentences like "In 2009, Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC's Question Time, amid significant public controversy." are given without explanation and can be a bit confusing. I know there's a link to a more detailed article, but some sort of context would be really helpful. Entire policy sections have no inline citations. Every statistic and electoral result should be referenced somewhere (including tables). I don't think the article is too detailed; the size is about right. Adabow (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I especially like the Breakaway parties section, but can't think how to improve it. It's possibly out of date, but still pretty relevant, as the BNP does seem to be fragmenting into smaller groups. The policies are sourced from ref 15, which is used a lot, but more instances of it could easily be added. I've added a bit to the Question Time appearance, but might add more again. Many thanks for reviewing this difficult article. Jamesx12345 09:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Diderot's dreams[edit]

I think the reviewer is on the right track. This article is too long and detailed, and a Good Article must have a summary style. As a rule of thumb, 100KB is the maximum article size, and this one is 30% larger. This point is key. The article is going to have to change a lot to become short enough, and that task plus whatever else needs to be done is beyond a 7 day hold. So the article should just be failed right away. Now, the other reviewer comments and nominator improvements that have been made are useful, but might get lost, become unnecessary, or need to be redone in the shuffle of shortening the article. So it's also a matter of doing first things first. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

100kb as a maximum article size isn't something I've heard of before. A great number of GAs and FAs, for example Sea and General relativity are quite a bit longer again. This has been trimmed from 180kb, which was too long, but I can't see 30kb of redundant material that can be chopped out. A full {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} takes several lines, and almost all of the 250+ cites are of that kind, and there is a full bibliography as well. The bibliography could be trimmed to not include books not used for cites, and that might well take it down by a few kb, but why? I believe the software can cope with pages of up to 2048kb or something, although it would get quite slow, but 130kb is not unheard of. If there is anything you feel does not belong in the article, do say, but articles about political parties are always quite long, and the BNP is an unusual and quite bizarre party. (If you're unfamiliar with them, have a look through the articles on their website - the comments at the bottom are the best bit.) In short, I don't think reducing the size of the article would make it any better or more useful to the reader, but am open to persuasion. Jamesx12345 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Diderot's dreams is correct in the ~100K max (see WP:SPLITSIZE), however this is based on readable prose size. This article has 49K of readable prose. Adabow (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The 100K is indeed a total size limit, and is an old rule of thumb from a few years ago-- but is the average point at which at article should be split-- sometimes a little sooner, sometimes the article can be a little bigger. The new recommended limit, from WP:SPLITSIZE, is 40K to 100K of readable text. Not 100K-- that is the absolute no matter what limit. This article has 62KB of readable text (not 48KB) by my estimate (as calculated from a cut and paste to Open Office of a selection of the article from the title to the beginning of the reference section). At this size, the guideline recommends "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".
Midnightblueowl, I suggest you read the new guideline yourself and apply it. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
My figure comes from using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Adabow (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I just tried using the javascript tool you used, and I get your number. Apparently, the javascript tool doesn't count several parts of the text that are copied in a simple cut and paste and are therefore counted using the method I used. These parts are: section headings, tables, bulleted text, photo captions, infobox text, and the table of contents. Most of these would be read by someone reading the whole article, and would contribute to "reader fatigue" per word as much as the body text. Certainly, headings and photo captions would be. And in this article's case, the bulleted text also. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jamesx12345[edit]

Going through the article again, I can't see where it doesn't meet the criteria. It has changed a huge amount since the review began, so the table at the top does not (in my opnion) represent the article in its current state. I have tried to address the concerns expressed, but the comments made may still be valid in places where they haven't been addressed properly by me. I will be able to do a bit of work over the next few days if some direct criticisms are forthcoming. Jamesx12345 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Truenature12[edit]

Firstly I would agree with the view noted about 'Breakaway Groups' I think this section needs to be bulleted and kept to parties/groups that are currently live, some groups listed are now defunct. The same could also be said for 'officially linked organisations' section too that includes groups that ceased to exist years ago.

I would say there is still some bias in the article for example the section on 'alleged front organisations' is based on Hope note Hate and Searchlight references. The definition of 'alleged' means unproven or the claims being made are from unreliable sources. The alleged Civil Liberty and BNP link is clearly no longer applicable. The section on 'association with violence' would benefit from focusing on the BNP as a party and it's leader more. Cottage was a card carrying member, but not an official. Many of the people listed haven't been BNP members for several years.

I believe some areas would benefit from being reduced and merged. For example as an idea much of the 'political tendency' section focusses on John Tyndall, this section could be merged with the 'race' section and become a section about 'political ideology'. I also think the British army immigrant issue could be reduced into 'immigration policy'. Finally some areas need a bit more added such as the BNPs stance on the EU, as this is a large part of BNP policy. The 'international politics contacts' section needs a bit more and certainly needs more referencing. Truenature12 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the EDL bit relevant? A section called "Alleged front organisations" is always going to be a bit iffy. I'll take that out. Jamesx12345 18:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some People are trying to make the article read like a HnH write-up rather than a Wiki page - full of speculation and outdated information. An organisation is either linked or not. Is the EDL a front of the BNP, no doubt some BNP members have been on EDL matches but I don't believe they are tied officially both distance themselves from each other. Civil Liberty promotes the British Democratic Party. Truenature12 10:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talkcontribs)

Well,that is being rather economical with the facts. What is meant by "outdated information"? Is it what the rest of us call recent history? Wikipedia's article on Civil Liberty details the close links between that organisation and the BNP - indeed, its founder and director, Kevin Scott, was a senior BNP official. That it now supports the BDP is because Scott himself has switched allegiance, in 2012, and is indicative of the falling apart of the BNP in the last two years, but for most of its existence Civil Liberty was exclusive in supporting BNP and BNP members. The sources are Searchlight, The Guardian, the BBC and the Daily Mirror, not Hope not Hate, but why that should matter is debatable anyway. If HnH presents reliable evidence, then the evidence is reliable! But there is a further piece of factual economy above: In wanting to remove the clear link between Civil Liberty and the BNP, Trunature12 claims that "Civil Liberty promotes the British Democratic Party". There is no evidence offered for this assertion. It's not on the CL website (which has numerous references to the BNP). Personally, I suspect it's true - why should Scott not shift his organisation's allegiance alng with his own? - but, as far as I know, there is no evidence for this. Certainly, Truenature presents none, he just says it's so and that is not acceptable. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that CL was associated with BNP until the split. Emeraude (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If something is outdated then it makes no sense being listed in officially linked groups or front organisations, this information needs to be updated and current. If there are outdated links they need to be under 'history'. The sources are interesting at the time Searchlight and Hope Not Hate, were part of the same group, the later being set up to oppose the BNP both supported by the Mirror. For many years Hope Not Hate was the campaigning wing of Searchlight. The Link between Civil Liberty and the BNP is not current. There are articles on the site promoting the British Democratic Party, Scott is Chairman of both. However, Civil Liberty was never a 'front' group of the BNP as it represented others on the right too. Much like the EDL is not a 'front' of the BNP. These organisations were not set up by the BNP with the influence of BNP funds, which is likely to be the case with Solidarity and the Christian Council of Britain. If there is a link and it is current and valid then it should be listed under 'officially linked groups'. Therefore, why is there a need for a section called 'alleged front organisations'?

Here is one link Civil Liberty promoting the BDP http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=1640 Truenature12 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Winding down?[edit]

Are there any outstanding concerns that this article doesn't meet the GA criteria? Specific examples would be helpful. If there are no objections in the next few days I'll list the article. Adabow (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer of this page, I will state that I am still not entirely happy with the page. It continues to need a lot of work. But thanks to some fantastic work on behalf of James, I think that it does meet the necessary GA criteria. In this case I am comfortable with it being appointed to GA, although I should still stress that it is a very long way from warranting FA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
If it helps, I'll give the article a look over in the next couple of days and give my view. This is a high profile article on a significant and contentious topic, so I do understand Midnightblueowl's hesitation. I'd always rather a reviewer was slow and careful than slipshod and hasty. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Please do tell me what still needs to be done and I will endeavour to fix it. Jamesx12345 20:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by SilkTork[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Pass
  • Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Prose is clear and readable. It's not perfect ("...by John Tyndall in 1982, since 1999..." is awkward for example), but in general it meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Coverage. From my background reading I'm not seeing any significant aspects not covered by the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Cites. It is richly (at times heavily) cited. Sources checked are reliable, and support the statements made in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing Original Research. Statements that I've checked are supported by sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Query
  • Minor edit warring occurring. Article should be free of reverts of non-vandalistic edits for a reasonable period before listing as a GA. Given the topic of this article, I would say two weeks would be a reasonable period. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Images. There is a problem with File:British National Party.svg. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably OK, but I'm a little unclear on the relevance of a National Front march. I understand that the caption says that the BNP emerged from the NF in 1982, but why is the image showing a march from the 1970s? Was that march somehow relevant to the split? If so, it would be useful to explain that in the text. As it stands, it appears to be an image linking BNP with the controversial NF marches of the 1970s. Is that appropriate? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have tidied up the Nick Griffin talking to voters in Romford Market image. In doing so I noticed that the figure that appears to be the subject of the image is not Nick Griffin. Griffin appears to one one of the people in the background with his back to the camera. I don't see the usefulness of this image - at least not with the current caption. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There appears to be a tendency to assert the fascist associations of the party. I'm not getting a clear idea of what the party's own ideologies are - more about what other people think they are. Now, it may well be the case that what other people think they are is more notable than what they themselves say they are, however, I do think that in a section on the ideology of the party, their own statements about how they view themselves should be included - at present they only appear in that section to say they not fascist, or to have a soundbite from the founder, which may or may not be related to the party's current ideology. The rest of the section is outside opinions saying they are fascist. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Statements such as "The BNP will abolish political correctness from the police service in favour of real crime fighting" are taken word for word from the BNP manifesto. Please either make this clear by using quote or speech marks, or rephrase. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Fail
  • Mos. Does not match the guidelines: WP:Lead, WP:Layout, and WP:EMBED. The lead needs to be built up so it is an appropriate summary of all the main sections. The sub-sections need to be looked at as many of them are very short creating a choppy, disjointed appearance, and making it difficult to read the article with any degree of flow. There are a number of embedded lists. Do we need so many? It makes it difficult to read with ease. I think much of this could be cleared up with a half-hour edit. Perhaps a bit longer for building up the lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Focus. The article goes into considerable detail over minor issues in the Legal issues section, and Veterans and Second World War section. And there also seems to be a lot of attention paid to the policies in the Policies section. A question needs to be asked if some material can be split into a standalone sub-article, leaving a summary in this article; or if the material can be simply trimmed and disposed of. Either way, the article goes into too much detail for an article in a general encyclopedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion

Initially I thought the article could be tidied up with a few hours work, but the more I looked into it, the more I saw that there needs to be some serious work down on trimming down the material. That tends to be time-consuming. Given that this GAN has been open for two months my recommendation is that it is now closed now as a fail, and that the work recommended is done before resubmitting for review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do feel conflicted on this issue, as it does meet most of the criteria, but I think that SilkTork has made a good case for failing this GAR at the current time. But keep up the good work ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. It still doesn't feel quite right in a number of ways, but pinning them down is hard. There are a number of very good and clear points to work on that have been made in this review, so I will try hard to fix them over the coming weeks. Jamesx12345 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help out when I can. I've just picked up a bunch of GA reviews, but when I've done them I'll lend a hand on getting this article ready for another GAN. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've formally closed the GAN. If there's still work to do and I haven't yet helped out, give me a nudge in January. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)