Talk:Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 16:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Overview

I'll take this on as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So the article needs a bit of work, but not too much. I'll put it on hold now and we can see how far we get. Mujinga (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio check

• No probs apart from the controversy section, where earwig flags up a few sentences which need changing alongside the quotations, which are fine as is

Pictures

• pic license ok

Infobox

Lead

• will come back to this last, but it's def too short right now
• MOS:LEAD is the guide for making the lead summarise the article, since the article needs a bit of work I'll revisit this to make suggestions later on

Early life

• ok

Career

• "She was made redundant by the company, prompting her to set up her own business[3] and has since admitted that she exaggerated qualifications on her CV to obtain the job.[3]" - suggest "She was then made" and removing the citation in the middle of the sentence
• I think the article could be restructured a bit
  • I'd suggest making an awards and recognition section
  • The move "She was awarded an OBE for her outstanding contribution to business in 2010 by Queen Elizabeth II.[5]" and "On 27 August 2015, Downing Street announced her elevation to the peerage,[6] and she was introduced in the House of Lords on 15 October by fellow Conservative peers Lord Freud and Baroness Morris of Bolton.[7]" into awards and recognition, so that the sotru of the business can flow better
  • Can you add in a bit more about the development of the Ultimo bra? From sources here or at Ultimo (brand)

MJM International

• Can be pulled together into one or two paragraphs
• Would be nice to hear a bit more about MJM / Ultimo - what i mean is what they sold, the development of the bra etc, since there's financial info about the company but not so much about the products themselves
• "She speaks around the globe with Success Resources, the speaking company who tour with Tony Robbins.[12]" this looks like promo spam and the link is dead, so suggest removing

Politics

• Suggest making into two paragraphs
• "Her inclusion drew criticism from other business leaders; however, she was commended on the release of the review by others such as the head of commercial banking for Europe at HSBC, Business secretary, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Sajid Javid, Ruth Lowbridge MBE, Executive Chair of the SFEDI Group and others" - sentence is a bit garbled and has two "others" in it, can you rephrase?

Controversy

• Per MOS:APOSTROPHE, apostrophes should be straight not curly.
• Like politics as well, I'm thinking this could be a second-level section not a third
• The bits that aren't direct quotes need rephrasing as they are lifted from the Guardian as noted above

Personal life

• "After 20 years and, after having had three children, on 27 December 2011, lawyers announced the couple's formal separation" reads a bit garbled, can you rephrase?
• Not sure if it's best here, but somewhere her television appearances should be mentioned, eg The Apprentice and 71 Degrees

Appointments

• I'd roll this section into "Awards and recognition" or similar

Honours

• I'd roll this section into "Awards and recognition" or similar

Register of interests

• I don't really see the need for this section and would suggest removing it

References

• current ref 12 (successinlondon) should be removed

Nominator response

Thank you for the detailed review! Hopefully the article is in better shape now. Re a few of your points:

1. Lead – I have added Mone's peerage to the lead section, but I am aware it probably needs to be fleshed out more.
2. Career / MJM International – I haven't added too much on the development of the bra (although I have clarified that Mone's initial bra idea was one that influenced Ultimo; I think the article was unclear on that beforehand) or company, though I have noted the other products sold by the company. There is a lot of information out there but unfortunately not much of it is mentioned in wiki-reliable sources. If there is anything you think I've missed in particular, please let me know!
3. Politics – I have removed all the information on who "commended [Mone] on the release of the review" as it seemed to be solely cited to the gov.uk source and not the secondary source in the article, which was critical. So no more garbled messaging there!
4. Controversy – I have changed this to a second-level heading, but also changed the title to "Alleged racist text messages" as it is more descriptive of the controversy and avoids it becoming a "coatracked" section. I have reworded the content which was inadvertently copied from the Guardian source, as you mentioned.
5. Television appearances – I created this section instead of including them in the "Personal life" section. Happy to merge the two if this is preferable.

—AFreshStart (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to integrate that section into the "Politics" section, changing the title to "Political career" as that seems more appropriate. Also added some info mentioned on article talk page. --AFreshStart (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Mone is in the news right now I think I'll pause the review for a couple of days for stability whilst the article develops. But yes I'd still be asking for a fuller paragraph on the lead! Mujinga (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AFreshStart: and anyone else interested in the GA review, it's hard for me to assess an article in terms of broadness and stability when it's being edited so much. It's great the article is being improved due to current events but then I'm wondering if it's better to keep the review on hold longer (fine by me) or to fail it now and revisit later on when interest has subsided and the developing corruption story has played out (also fine by me). Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I think that keeping the review on hold sounds like a good idea, but obviously the final decision is up to you. The recent attention and large-scale changes this page has received ought to fizzle out soon IMO. Thank you so much, and sorry for the late reply! —AFreshStart (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|AFreshStart} sure that sounds good, i'll check back in after a week or so Mujinga (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: I noticed that the TV section is sourced entirely to tabloids. Unless better sources are available, it should probably be removed. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse: I'm okay with removing this. I couldn't find any non-tabloid references for this section. —AFreshStart (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

On that note, the Guardian article already on the article mentions 71 Degrees and The Apprentice Mujinga (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Added to personal life section. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Continuing review

• Hiya I'm back to continue the review, apologies I now see that a ping I sent a week ago got garbled. As we expected, the editing frenzy has died down, fascinating to see how if something is in the news it attracts interest here.
• I'm reading the article again making some copyedits as I go, see what you think about them.
• Also I've removed a rather outlandish claim about weight loss since it wasn't in the source and I saw it as a BLP issue to be removed on sight. Mujinga (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• The PPE Medpro needs editing trimming I'd say, it should be in paragraphs and there's too much info which isn't really concerned with Mone herself.
• Likewise the Political career section needs pulling into paragrpahs. I also think it could be a standalone section aside from her work history.
• Some of personal life could go into early life, or alternatively maybe just put early life into personal life?
• Finally I do still want the lead to be better at summarising the article, which is hopefully now more stable. MOS:LEADLENGTH would suggest one or two paragraphs, so I'd say it'd be great to have two small ones or one big one, summarising something from each section Mujinga (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging @AFreshStart: as nominator and @Smartse: since you made some comments here as well. Mujinga (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your patience here, I had no idea this page would blow up in the way it did when I first nominated it for review. I've tried to trim the PPE Medpro bit by removing content not directly related to Mone (I think a lot of this would be relevant somewhere else, but not this page). I've separated the "Political career" section, and included the PPE Medpro subheading under this as this is directly relevant to her political activities. I'm not the best with leads, but hopefully it's better now. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice one for the work, I think this is now a good article, liking the structure. The lead right now is quite heavy on PPE Medpro but that will be why people are coming to her article so it seems fitting for now. Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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.