Talk:Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review[edit]

Passed. Congratulations Michaeldble. I would encourage you to nominate an interesting fact from the article to DYK.--Llewee (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent quality article. I will suggest a few pointers about how it could be improved. Pease use the  Done template or strikethrough to indicate that an issue has been dealt with. Add any questions or comments after each point.--Llewee (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Llewee Thank you very much for taking this on! I'll have a look at this over the weekend. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the 1918 general election,..." - Can you go further back in time? The labour party had a cooperation agreement with the liberals before the First World War which might be worth mentioning.
  • "the largest party in the country" - probably clearer to say "parliament"
  • For the first table's headings I would suggest changing the term "government" to something like "result" or "outcome". I think government could be mistaken for the government before the election.
  • The early elections are cited to a now apparently defunct website called "election demon". Was this source published by any known person or organisation that might be reliable? If not are any alternative sources available?
  • Some of the sources are not formatted correctly. Have a look through the Template:Cite Web, especially the examples section, for guidance on how citations should be structured.

I'll have a look to see if their are anymore issues once these have been dealt with.

Reply[edit]

@Llewee
  • "Following the 1918 general election,..." - Can you go further back in time? The labour party had a cooperation agreement with the liberals before the First World War which might be worth mentioning. I've added additional context on the formation of the party in the history section as well as a mention of the first few elections in the general election section. I could extend the pact with the Liberals if needed
  • "the largest party in the country" - probably clearer to say "parliament" Done
  • For the first table's headings I would suggest changing the term "government" to something like "result" or "outcome". I think government could be mistaken for the government before the election. Done
  • The early elections are cited to a now apparently defunct website called "election demon". Was this source published by any known person or organisation that might be reliable? If not are any alternative sources available? This seemed to be one of the main sources used on other articles for 19th and 20th century elections but I'm not particularly sure how reliable it is. I've replaced it with some new sources anyway.
  • Some of the sources are not formatted correctly. Have a look through the Template:Cite Web, especially the examples section, for guidance on how citations should be structured.

I think I've had a go at this but not too sure that I've corrected everything

I'd not heard of these agreements before but I'm not so sure that it would be relevant on here unless they were official coalitions. I can add these though depending on what you think.

Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeldble Thank you for responding to my suggestions. You have dealt with some of the issues with the formatting of sources. However, page numbers should not be included in a title of a source. There are page and pages sections in the form for editing the reference. For instance formatting that looks like this:

{{Cite web |last=Sharp |first=Caroline |date=1 November 2002 |title=School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research |url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/1318/44414.pdf#:~:text=The%20official%20school%20starting%20age%20in%20England%20and,of%20the%20year%20in%20which%20they%20become%20five. |page=3 }}

Results in:

Sharp, Caroline (1 November 2002). "School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research" (PDF). p. 3.

On the question of the agreements, the Bute House Agreement, which is the Scottish one, seems to be effectively a coalition in all but name with the minor party having ministers in the government so I think should be included. In the Welsh cases, agreements seem to be fairly common and probably come with the territory of minority governments, perhaps just add foot notes referencing them?--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Llewee I've changed the format of those sources now. I've added the Bute House Agreement as a footnote in the table and I've added some info about the Plaid Cymru agreement to the Senedd section. Michaeldble (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michaeldble I've done a number of spot checks on sources that seem to be fine. The article seems to be a bit unclear on what the introductions to the tables are for. The UK parliament table is introduced just with an overview of the Labour party's history. The devolved parliaments are introduced with background on the institution and a history of the labour party in them (with a lot more detail in Wales than in Scotland). The various institutions in England and EU elections are solely introduced with an explanation of what they are. Also, the SNP won't like the way their name is spelt in the Scottish parliament introduction.--Llewee (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee Sorry, I'm slightly unclear with this reply.
In terms of the introductions to each section, I think it's best to summarise Labour's record in each election and explain the voting system which is used/any other relevant context. I can add some detail about First Past the Post to the general election part, extend the London mayoral election results and add more detail about the party's best/worst results in the European elections. Is this what you had in mind?
Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bit more balance between the contents of each introduction would be good. Thank you for fixing the SNP's name.--Llewee (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee I've extended the Scottish Parliament, London mayoral and European Parliament introduction sections now. Michaeldble (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything additional be said about the other mayoral and London Assembly elections?--Llewee (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended the London Assembly section further just now. I'm not too sure if there's anything else that could be added for the London mayoral or combined authorities section though Michaeldble (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the article through the earwig Copyvio detector (see results here https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Electoral_history_of_the_Labour_Party_%28UK%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0). The only source their was any concern about was https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf#page=11 . I think it mainly picked up formal titles and phrasing which is fairly generic. However, you might want to look at rewording text to reduce crossover.--Llewee (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Llewee I think there was only one sentence that was using that source. I've changed it slightly now Michaeldble (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Could you add a few images (e.g of election campaigning)?--Llewee (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee I've added three images to the article now Michaeldble (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michaeldble, I wasn't really thinking pictures of individuals but rather posters, campaigning events and the like. Have a look through this category on the commons ([[1]]) and its sub categories for ideas.--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee I've added an election poster from 1918. Is one image okay? I couldn't find any other images apart from this one on the commons Michaeldble (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of additional images to the devolved election sections. Feel free to take them out if your not keen on them.--Llewee (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Clement Attlee, Leader of the Labour Party 1935–1955
Clement Attlee, Leader of the Labour Party 1935–1955

Improved to Good Article status by Michaeldble (talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: No previous DYK noms. Passed GA recently. Copyvio check passes. Quick question though about the hook, "earned fewer votes" doesn't feel like the typical language used. I would have expected the phrase "received fewer votes". Not a dealbreaker in anyway, it just catches me off guard and wanted to flag it. Might be worthwhile sticking an alt here with it and allow the promoter to pick their preferred. Seddon talk 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaeldble: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: @Seddon: Yes, that sounds more natural to me as well, I've just changed it now. Michaeldble (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seddon, are you going to continue this review, or should I call for a new reviewer? Z1720, are you interested if Seddon isn't? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New reviewer needed; prior reviewer has not returned despite activity elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amended hook checks out as do all criteria. Let's roll.--Launchballer 23:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electoral_history_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=1212205678"