Talk:Gateway Protection Programme

Peer review suggested improvements

The article's peer review resulted in the following suggestions, which I have annotated so as to show how I (or other editors) have responded:

Lead: I think you mean "actual" rather than "eventual" Fixed

Programme details

Why is the first sentence there? It doesn't seem to have any purpose. I disagree - it serves a purpose as far as I can see

Second sentence far too long, needs to be split after "Home Office". Then: "If they meet the criteria they are brought..." etc. But can you specify whose criteria you mean? Fixed

History

There is a long gap in time in your discussion of the quota number. We have a sentence about Blunkett's intentions to set the quota at 1,000 during the second year of operation (2002–03), then suddenly we are told the 2008–09 figure. At the very least there needs to be a linking sentence or two after "slow to take off", stating that despite such-and-such pressures and because of this-and-that factors, the number remained at 500 per annum Fixed

You should reverse the order of paragraphs, so that the ancient history is discussed before the more recent stuff. What were the dates of the Mandate Refugee Scheme (Palestine 1948?) and the Ten or More Plan? Fixed order, added available details

Refugees resettled under the programme: There is no need to repeat in the text exactly the information provided in the table - which really ought to be in this section instead of the Burmese picture, which might go elsewhere. So the sentences: "In 2004, 150 refugees were resettled. This fell to 50 in 2005 but rose to 355 in 2006 and 485 in 2007" are unnecessary. What seems missing from the section is any reason why the figures were initially so low. Fixed; reason for low numbers given in history section

Resettlement locations: 15 local authorities out of how many? It would be good to know. Fixed

General point: MOS encourages the use of no-break spaces. See WP:NBSP Fixed

If you have any comments on this, please leave them below. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gateway Protection Programme/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still needs some effort with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See comments below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The File:Home logo.gif page will need a fair use rationale for this article (each article's use requires a separate rationale)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

MoS issues:

• The citation style is inconsistent with respect to linking publishers and works: sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. I suggest always linking, especially for a short article like this. Readers from outside the UK may want to know what the Eastern Daily Press is, for example.
• All of the cites end with a period except the Parliamentary ones that have "column" in them. (Or is this just a "feature" of the cite template being used?)
• The article has no redlinks. It looks like several of the programs, conferences, and legislative acts mentioned in the text might well be worthy of articles themselves. Per WP:REDLINK, adding these helps indicate to other editors opportunities for new work and helps WP improve.
• The lead section is a little thin. I think something about the low quota numbers should be added, as well as something about the program's seemingly mixed effectiveness so far. This would better summarize the article.

Coverage issues:

• What was the date of the Mandate Refugee Scheme? Not clear if it's in the past or another program in the present.
• The low numbers in this program is what's striking to the reader. The quota numbers are compared to that of other countries, but perhaps that could be expanded upon a bit. Regarding "The British government has faced criticism", who has done the criticizing? Maybe a sentence about the total refugee population in the world during the mid-late 2000s should be added, to give a sense for the size of the overall problem?
• And while it's mentioned that this is separate from the normal asylum process in the UK, the numbers for that process need to be given. Does the Gateway Protection Programme handle a small fraction compared to those applying for asylum? What about those granted asylum?
• How politically controversial was creation of this program? By what margin was the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 approved? What has been the reaction of politicians outside the Labour Party to it?
• Why have the numbers resettled been so much under quota? Why are local councils reluctant to participate? And are there other reasons besides that?
• What has been the reaction of the general public nationwide to the program (as opposed to those in specific resettlement areas)? Any opinion polls available? Or even if there are polls related to the asylum/refugee resettlement issues in general, that would be useful. The quoted fragment "... some of the attacks on the notion of political asylum that we have heard in recent years ..." hints at some context that this article doesn't otherwise explore.

Let me know if you have any questions regarding these points. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started to address these comments. So far, I've fixed the MoS issues apart from expanding the lead section. Of the coverage issues, I've added details on asylum numbers and the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I can't find any start date for the Mandate Refugee Scheme and there's not much else available on public reaction to the programme. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the status of your work on this? The normal GA review period is a week, and it's now been over a month. While the article is mostly "good", there are still some frustrating holes in it; even one of your additions since the review leads to another – why did the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 pass by a large margin in Commons but take nine goes to get through Lords, and was the Gateway Protection Programme part of that much larger overall Act controversial or widely accepted? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been taking a while since there is very little published information on many of the issues you raised. I think I've pretty much exhausted the material available now. The hostility to the 2002 Act from the Lords stemmed largely from their opposition to the detention of asylum seekers rather than anything to do with the GPP (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added to the article in a couple of places to help fill out some of this. There are still some unanswered questions, but overall I think this article now fulfills the GA criteria and I'm passing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gateway Protection Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031173903/http://unitedkingdom.iom.int/resettlement-and-family-reunification to http://unitedkingdom.iom.int/resettlement-and-family-reunification

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gateway Protection Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926052215/http://www.gddc.pt/direitos-humanos/outraspubPDF/Asolo%20Ingles/0.%20Asile%20%281-170%29.pdf to http://www.gddc.pt/direitos-humanos/outraspubPDF/Asolo%20Ingles/0.%20Asile%20%281-170%29.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130419211827/http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2006/01/19/52432/few-councils-take-up-un-scheme.html to http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2006/01/19/52432/few-councils-take-up-un-scheme.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/lifestyle/real_life_2_658/norfolk_is_a_gateway_to_a_safer_way_of_life_1_1109785

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gateway Protection Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402213607/http://www.employabilityforum.co.uk/documents/UKBA-refugee-integration-strategy-2009.pdf to http://www.employabilityforum.co.uk/documents/UKBA-refugee-integration-strategy-2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)