Wikipedia:Peer review/John Key/archive1

John Key

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it passed as a GA, however the review was done by a pretty inexperienced editor, and although he passed it straight away (without a hold), I doubt that it is actually up to GA standard. What needs to be done to ensure it stays a good article, and what needs to be done to eventually raise it up to FA standard? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• The article is rather short when the subject is a current prime minister. This means that the infobox is disproportionately large. The photograph seems rather oppressively oversized, as does the scrawl of signature. Also, it isn't necessary to include everything about the subject in the infobox. Why have the information about his various offices both here and at the end of the article? The infobox could be much shorter.
• The lead is too short and does not summarise the entire article.
• Image placement: it is inappropriate to have the image of Key celebrating his 2008 victory right at the start of the article. It should be more appropriately placed, in the section in which this event occurs.
• Personal life: The prose seems rather magaziney; it is not necessary to name the children again (they are named in the infobox), nor to mention his wife's role as a full-time mother. The section is also a little short on details about Key. I know accountants are deemed to be irretrievably boring, but is he an entirely one-dimensional figure? Something - anything - to give him some depth would make the article more interesting.
• Before politics: Section should not begin with a pronoun. Overlinking: foreign exchange (everyday term)
• Member of Parliament: The table is, to me, incomprehensible without some explanatory text. What do the headings "Term" and "List" mean? The relevant results are given in the text, so does the table serve any purpose?
• Finance spokesman: Apart from the mention of Key's appointment, this short section is about something else entirely. Is there no information to be given as to how Key performed this role? Also, information is completely lacking to explain his rapid rise to party leader. Were there other candidates for the post? Was there an election, and what was its outcome? This is essential information for a biographical article on a politician. You don't even give the date on which he became leader.
• The narrative concerning Key's time as opposition leader seems to consist of anecdotes. OK, these may be interesting or even important, but we need to know something about the political climate of the times, and have a sense as to how Key operated in this climate. What government policies did he focus his attacks upon? What policy alternatives was he offering? What was the climate of opinion at the time - what did the opinion polls show, etc etc? The section is incomplete and inadequate as it stands.
• Prime minister
  • Nothing about the election campaign?
  • The results indicate that Key needed a coalition partner to form a majority government. Who was this partner?
  • What does "overhang" mean?
  • As with the previous section, this is mainly anecdotal trivia and doesn't give any kind of a picture of a statesman in office. And why is his appearance on Letterman in a section supposedly concerned with a UN Security Council seat bid? Surely there should be some discussion of this bid - why was it made, and what was the outcome?
• Political views: I won't say much, except that you say he has changed his views on the Iraq war since becoming leader of the opposition. You don't say when this change occurred, or what his current views are. That information would be interesting.
• Religious views: I don't think this section has any justifiable place in the article, since Key's religion, or lack of it, has never been a political issue. Or, if it has, this should have been discussed earlier in the article.

As you will have gathered from my review, I believe that this article needs considerable expansion if it is to come near to meeting the "comprehensive" criterion as required by FAC. It might be an idea to look at other prime minister articles that have made it to FA; the most recent I can think of is John Diefenbaker. I hope that you found this eview helpful; please note that I haave not checked out sources or image licences. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just found this review and wanted to make a quick comment. Some good articles about Prime Ministers to compare this with are David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, all of which are currently listed as Good Article. Doing a quick search, the only Featured Article I came across (apart from the one mentioned above) is Neville Chamberlain, though I'm sure there are others. Hope this helps. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)