Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/archive1

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this to FL status. The main problem at the moment is the lead, which I'm not really sure what to do with, but clearly needs quite a bit of work. I also welcome feedback on whether or not I have comprehensively covered the subject.

Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a more comprehensive constituency listing than others I've seen, and could set a standard in this topic area. Here are some suggestions that might help to bring it to FL standard:-

• Prose and presentation issues: Lead
  • "Each constituency elects a Member of Parliament (MP), who represents their constituency at the UK Parliament in Westminster." This is ungrammatical. Best to simplify: "Each constituency elects a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent it at the UK Parliament in Westminster."
  • "Nine of Hertfordshire's eleven MPs are Conservative Party MPs, while the remaining two are part of the governing Labour Party." Sentence needs a time reference, and also slight rephrasing to avoid unnecessary repetition of "MPs". Thus: "Following the 2005 General Election nine of Hertfordshire's eleven MPs are Conservatives, the remaining two being members of the governing Labour Party."
  • Wrong use of hyphens in "...two urban borough constituencies- Broxbourne and Watford- while the other..." These should be ndashes, with spaces around them, thus: "...two urban borough constituencies – Broxbourne and Watford – while the other..."
  • "county constituencies" should have the same wikilink as "borough constituencies", since each term is explained in the same place. Since you later adopt the letters "BC" and "CC" as you should introduce thewe abbreviations here.
  • It would make things clearer if the second lead paragraph began with a brief explanation: "Since the last constituency elections in 2005, some boundaries have been altered. The present boundaries..." etc
    • I think I've dealt with everything raised here (thought I'd posted this last night!). WFCforLife (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Parliamentary history of Hertfordshire
  • The word "also" is redundant in the second sentence.
  • The words "in the thirteenth century" in the fifth sentence, are redundant since you have already mentioned the thirteenth century as the starting point.
  • Awkward phrasing: "...which increased the constituency of Hertfordshire's representation from two MPs to three..." This would be clearer as "which increased Hertfordshire constituency's representation from two MPs to three,..."
  • This history seems incomplete, ending as it does with the 1885 Redistribution of Seats Act. There needs to be a couple more sentences explaining that the rising and mobile population, and the gradual extension of the franchise from a privileged few to a mass electorate, meant that all over the country, not just in Hertfordshire, constituency boundaries have continued to be redrawn at regular intervals. That would give you a proper run-in to your first table, which is not well-integrated with the article at present.
    • All addressed. WFCforLife (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Constituencies for the 2010 General Election
  • Section needs a brief introduction saying when the current boundaries were determined. The "Key" table which follows I found unhelpful. It would be better to replace this with a text summary of the five ward changes, or possibly with a three column table: Ward name; Previous constituency; New constituency
  • There needs to be an explanation of the divisions in the main table's lists of wards as between local authorities. I wonder, is this division relevant or necessary?
    • Completely agree about the need to explain what these wards are. The division into separate rows was unnecessary and I have removed it. That said, I believe the wards would be relevant to a serious researcher on the subject, whom we should be attempting to cater for at FL level. WFCforLife (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Other points
  • Page ranges should be indicated by pp not just p
  • It might be worth adding details of each sitting member's current majority to the main table.
    • On the one hand I think it's certainly relevant, and on the other I'm wary of creating a jumble of statistics that aren't really related to one another, or are no more useful that other statistics or facts that I've decided to omit. Perhaps I should split the table, so that one covers the geography, and the other covers the electoral side? WFCforLife (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I've found a reasonable balance. WFCforLife (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's about it. Please call my talkpage when you have worked on these changes, and I'll be happy to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll address any individual responses under the appropriate bullet points, and drop you a note on your talk page when I believe I've dealt with/queried everything. WFCforLife (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing this as my concerns have been commented on, and Brianboulton has indicated his approval of the improvements made. For anyone interested, the final comments relating to this peer review prior to closure can be seen at our talk pages. WFCforLife (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)