Talk:New Labour/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Road Wizard (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A good article that looks well on the way to FA status. There are just a few issues to consider to reach GA then you may want to request a peer review for the next steps to FA status.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
which attempted to provide an synthesis between - is "an" the correct usage here?
that the failing bank Northern Rock would be nationalised - should there be a comma before and after Northern Rock?
In July 2011 speech, Blair stated - missing "a" or perhaps "a speech in July"? I would have changed this myself but am not sure which is better.
a leading revisionist socialist thinker - is it usually written without punctuation rather than "revisionist-socialist thinker" or "revisionist, socialist thinker"? The sentence seems a little awkward to read without punctuation.
would influence influential political broadcasters - perhaps use an alternative second word there "key", "important" or "other"?
Giddens criticised Labour's "half-way houses", including the National Health Service - I am always wary when editors need to use quotations for a specific term. It usually means that there is an extra meaning or context that has not been explained. Should this be fleshed out a little? For example, "Giddens criticised Labour's half completed policies such as..."

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
possibly because of an agreement between the two made in 1994 - "possibly" reads a little like a weasel term here as it sounds like we want to make a statement but aren't willing to atribute it to a source. Perhaps change it to "reportedly" or "according to..." with a supporting citation at the end of the sentence?
Strategic Communications Unit - is the unit ever likely to get an article? Perhaps direct the link to Strategic communication or a similar article?
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
A healthy selection of references

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
A mimimum of 1 citation per paragraph is suitable for GA status. You may need to add citations for certain sentences to take this to A or FA status.

C. No original research:
Every paragraph is referenced so there are no problems here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Should John Smith be mentioned at all (beyond one sentence about a commission)? At a couple of points the article mentions policies started by Kinnock and continued under Blair. It almost reads as if Blair succeeded Kinnock. Was Smith following the same policies or did he try to lead the party in a different direction?

B. Focused:
The article deals succintly with the subject matter without straying too far into a general overview of Labour in government.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
There are no obvious signs of bias. The article seems to cover a mixture of successes and failures for the party during the period in question.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No signs of edit warring since the content was spun out from the main Labour Party article.
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:
I am surprised that the New Labour logo can be uploaded with a public domain licence. However I am not an expert on copyright so I will leave it to those wiser than me to challenge the assertion if needed.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Editors may want to consider adding alt text to images to make them more useful for people with screen readers.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This is almost a pass. Once editors have checked through the suggestions above and either accepted them or explained why they aren't suitable, I should be able to push this through to GA status.

Hi Road Wizard, thanks for your review. On your first point, I have changed the sentence to "Gordon Brown was not a candidate in the leadership election because of an agreement between the two made in 1994, in which Brown promised not to run for election. The media has since speculated that Blair agreed to stand down and allow Brown the premiership in the future, though Blair's supporters have contended that such a deal never took place." Does that sound ok? I have changed the link as you suggested, and I will now have a look at finding something to write on John Smith. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. I noticed that you referred to the issues under 1B as my first point; there are also issues under 1A that you may have missed. I will check back tomorrow evening to see how you are getting on or if you have any further questions for me. Road Wizard (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, completely missed 1A! I'll go through those in a moment. I've added something on John Smith in the branding section, as well as into the lead. Kinnock is also mentioned in the electoral support section; I can't find anything in the sources about Smith in that area. There's not loads on him (about as much as Kinnock) because he was not really part of New Labour, but I have given him more coverage than he previously had - I feel that, in terms of what is relevant to New Labour - there is enough coverage with what I added. I don't know if you think that is enough; I can look for more if you think it needs it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On prose, I have dealt with most of those. I am hesitant to call Crosland a "revisionist-socialist" because the hyphen suggests a widely used term - none of the sources referred to it like that. If I put "revisionist, socialist" - with the comma - it would suggest that Crosland was a revisionist and a socialist, and imply they were two separate things. The two are related (he was a socialist who pursued a revisionist form of socialism), so I don't think a comma would be right, and a hyphen is misleading. Do you think it would be alright to leave that one as it is? With Giddens, I have noted that it was Giddens' own view that the projects were "half-way houses", to be more neutral. The source doesn't go into any extra meaning, just how Giddens referred to the projects. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the changes you have made and the explanations you have provided here.

Well done, I am happy to promote this article to GA status. Good luck if you choose to take this on to either Peer Review or an A / FA assessment. Road Wizard (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]