Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/A-Team

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

A-Teams are small groups of at least three editors who work closely together to improve an article to the vaunted A-Class. Collaborative editing is one of the main attractions at Wikipedia. And promoting an article to A-Class on an A-Team is a rewarding experience. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least two members. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes. For information regarding B-Class and other quality types click here.

Instructions

[edit]

Nominating an article
1. If this is your first A-Class nomination please read the A-Class criteria before proceeding: A-Class criteria
2. Enter the article title in the box below and click the button


3. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and click Publish changes
4. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/ARTICLE TITLE}}, and edit this page, pasting the template at the bottom of the list of nominations, and click Publish changes. This will transclude the nomination into this page.
5. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog

Reviewing nominations

  • Review articles based on how they compare to the A-Class criteria
  • Start your review by clicking the edit link next to the article name
  • To support a nomination, write Support, followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text.
  • To oppose a nomination, write Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write Comment followed by your advice.
Closing nominations

1. Closure takes place after a minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days
2. Close the nomination with {{Archive top}}. If two reviewers Support then result=Promoted. Otherwise result=Not promoted.
3. If the article was Promoted then edit the article Talk page and change the WikiProject banners to class=A-Class For this task the Rater tool is recommended.
4. Notify the nominators. Edit the nominators Talk pages and paste {{subst:A-Class notice|article=ARTICLE TITLE}} and click Publish changes.

Nominations

[edit]

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Cold War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently de-listed at GAR and it appears to be well below our A-Class standard, and needs quite a bit of work to meet it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, I have skimmed over this, and these are my initial issues, before even going into a detailed prose review:
  • The lead is far, far too long. (Even by my own standards.)
  • There are too many images, and these often pinch the text.
  • There are (by my count) 20 "citation needed" tags, and 7 "citation not found" tags.
  • Many of the book references don't provide page numbers.
  • There are quite a few basic formatting issues, not least the eighth paragraph of the Third World escalations section.
  • While many paragraphs are long, and have a tendency towards over-detail, there are also some single sentence paragraphs.

Overall, this needs a lot of love and attention to get it up to A-class standard. Harrias talk 14:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Some citation problems, too many images, use of quotes when prose could be employed, inadequate explanation of events in Africa and things like death of Dag Hammarskjöld go without mention. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Where shall I even start? First, those templates about having a too-long lead and the article itself. Second, it looks terribly with its chaotic images are in the wrong places. And as of last like everyone else, this article lacks reliable citations this article doesn't derve to be an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The first article nominated for the WikiProject A-Class Review is promoted! Two members Support: 1990'sguy and JohnAlbertRigali.

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.

Margaret Thatcher

[edit]
Nominator(s): Neveselbert (talk)

Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A-Class toolbox

Currently a Good Article, I think it's pretty fair to say this article has come a long way since the subject's death in 2013, and largely for the better in my opinion. I previously brought up the subject of nominating this article for A-Class status in February 2018, see Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 26#A-Class proposal. Two editors (namely JFG and Gravuritas) agreed with my proposal to nominate the article, though at the time no WikiProject this article was of interest in had A-Class capability (thanks Lionelt for the heads-up). Comments and feedback are very much appreciated.--Neve~selbert 21:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Neveselbert: I'm thrilled that you've nominated Margaret Thatcher to be the first A-Class Review at WP Conservatism. I will start my review presently. Please note @1990'sguy: has stepped to to be the second reviewer. – Lionel(talk) 03:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The license is wrong. The Commons page says public domain. However source says Mr. Lee is the author and license is CC-BY-SA 3.0 https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Iron-Lady-Margaret-Roberts-Age-13//1 – Lionel(talk) 06:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed licence per the source provided.--Neve~selbert 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Date of photo still doesn't match caption – Lionel(talk) 07:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't really be an issue. The image is used only to illustrate schoolchildren drinking milk, which Thatcher abolished for prepubescent pupils in 1970.--Neve~selbert 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Thatcher-loc.jpg: License says "no known copyright restrictions" however LOC says "Therefore, the Library recommends that patrons obtain permission from the creator agency, the photographer or the photographer's heirs before publishing or otherwise distributing images taken by non-staff photographers, except as allowed under "fair use."
    Considering this image is an FP at the Turkish Wikimedia Commons, I think it's safe to presume there are no issues with this one's licence.--Neve~selbert 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert: I recommend that you check all of the licensing and then I'll continue with image review. Thanks! – Lionel(talk) 09:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lionelt: I have just reviewed the licencing for every image used in the article, and I don't see any significant issues. There are couple of files that are supposedly licensed under Creative Commons, though other than that everything seems fine. Each and every image used has been uploaded to the Commons, rather than here.--Neve~selbert 16:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert: I've reviewed all images. Some issues need to be addressed. – Lionel(talk) 07:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionelt: I think that I've fixed most of the issues noted. Thanks for the review! --Neve~selbert 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! – Lionel(talk) 08:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Neveselbert: From the getgo, this article looks pretty good. It has a logical organization and seems thorough. I will look more closely in the coming days, but so far, I have these constructive criticisms:

  • Reference 178 (at the bottom of the "Industrial relations" section), needs a page number.
  • For the table showing spending changes during Thatcher's tenure at the top of the "Economy and taxation" section, I recommend that you place the reference at a location where it doesn't look like only the defense spending is cited.
  • Lionelt might have a different opinion, but I think the tag at the "Further reading" section is unnecessary. All the works cited look appropriate to me, and considering the overall size of this article, I don't think it's excessive. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've prepared some material (little more than bullet points) for stuff, mainly from her early career, which I think deserves a mention. Will post when I get a free evening this week, hopefully. For what it's worth, I've recently done a bit of sharpening up of some of the content of Premiership of Margaret Thatcher and a fair bit of work on the Westland Affair of 1986 (loads more notes not yet posted), as well as writing up Michael Heseltine's biography in comprehensive detail (although I have yet to plough through the Anthony Howard biography which purports to be Hezza's memoirs). I am also doing a lot of work on the 1975 and 1990 leadership elections. However, I fully appreciate that a biography of Thatcher needs to be kept at a level of detail accessible to schoolkids and general readers. Those who want to read the fine detail about Westland can go to the relevant article.Paulturtle (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: some general comments and results of Toolbox checks

– Lionel(talk) 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

  • A quick glance of citation style shows consistency.
  • The last fragment of "The Iron Lady" needs a ref. Last sentence of first para of Industrial relations needs a ref. Everything else that should be cited is cited.
    plus Added sources published by BBC News and Oxford Dictionaries.--Neve~selbert 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #48 is dead.
    I have checked the ref and it seems fine. Can you provide a direct link? --Neve~selbert 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Lionel(talk) 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed.--Neve~selbert 23:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: @Neveselbert: the article size is 70930. Articles > 50K are candidates for splitting WP:TOOBIG. IMO the Premiership section is too long--especially since there is a standalone article. The section may be overly detailed taking into account this is a Bio. Apart from that, the Bibliography section is still pretty large. – Lionel(talk) 06:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything you'd like me to specifically reduce, I'm willing to have a look. In the mean time, we could add a {{Split}} tag for each section.--Neve~selbert 23:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Neveselbert:

  • In the lead, chronologically, should the assassination which occurred in 1984 be moved to the last para?
  • " Prior to the Second World War, in 1938" superfluous comma
  • Should the birthplace Coords be moved from the plaque photo to the infobox?
  • Why is field hockey wikilinked?
  • Second iteration of "women's college" should not be wikilinked
  • Should the section title "Leader of the Opposition: 1975–1979" include something about ascent to PM?
  • The quotation from "Economy: Letter of the 364 economists seems undue. The section is long as it is.
  • quotation from"A Review of Privatisation and Regulation seems undue.
  • The first sentence of "Northern Ireland" is a one-sentence para and should be merged into the following para.
  • Can this be quantified "Violence in Northern Ireland escalated significantly during the hunger strikes"
  • For extra credit, expand Environment section
  • Foreign affairs section is long. Should it be broken into subsections?
  • "Although saying that she was in favour of "peaceful negotiations" to end apartheid,[230][231] Thatcher opposed sanctions imposed" although is a weasel word
  • "This was no time to go wobbly" that was the best!
  • Why did she withdraw before the second ballot???
  • How was her relationship with Bush?
  • Should these qualities be added to the Thatcherism sidebar? Thatcherism came to refer to her policies as well as aspects of her ethical outlook and personal style, including moral absolutism, nationalism, interest in the individual
  • Cultural depictions seems like a trivia section. Imo should be trimmed. And it has 2 one-sentence paras. The lyrics for Maggie Out are unnecessary. This is a great article... You need to finish strong!  ;-)

– Lionel(talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neveselbert: did you have a chance to peruse the items? – Lionel(talk) 12:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've been caught up with quite a few things lately. If you could attend to these issues yourself, that'd be great .--Neve~selbert: 20:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert: I may have forgotten that this is A-Class, not FA, lol. I have only the comment about the Cultural section for me to vote Support. Note that the rest will probably come up at FA.
Pinging @1990'sguy: to see if he had anything else and what he wants to do with his !vote Comment/Support/Oppose.
And then we can close :-) – Lionel(talk) 06:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionelt: (responding to your invitation on my user talk page) I don't regard myself as qualified to determine whether an article is A-class, and I don't have time to go over Maggie's article with a fine-toothed comb, but I reviewed it as briefly as possible (which was not so brief) and it looks tight to me aside from the "Maggie Out" issue (on which I'm torn). I support. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good, and seeing the improvements that Neveselbert has made in the past many days, I !vote support. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Assessment/A-Team&oldid=863167072"