Talk:British National Party/GA4

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I'll take this one on if you're happy with that ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are issues with the prose throughout the text. For instance, in the "National Front" section, you refer to "the split within the NNF"; do you actually mean "the split within the NF" ? A thorough copyedit is required.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could definitely do with expansion to summarise the entire contents of the page; I am more than happy to help with this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are still sections where it is unreferenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Many sections go into to much detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid to say that I am inclined to fail this once again; not enough has been changed since the article's last GAR, and I really think that this is a situation where the article should be split off into smaller articles (i.e. History of the British National Party) first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fail it yet - give me something immediate to do, and I'll get to work on it. James^x12345 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, there is now a History of the British National Party. I'll get to work with the shears and add a few {{main}}s. James^x12345 19:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the 2010 manifesto dedicates a very solemn page (46) to "Saving Britain’s Pubs" made me very merry. James^x12345 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work thus far; your edits are certainly appreciated and are improving the article! Nevertheless, I've decided to call for a second opinion on this one, given the controversial nature of the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If any more referencing is needed, just tag bomb it with {{cn}} and I'll get to work. The BBC News archives almost make the license fee worthwhile... James^x12345 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great article, and very nearly at GA-level. The biggest issues are overuse of embedded lists (particularly the unbulleted list-like frgamented Breakaway parties section. One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be avoided where possible. I haven't read through the article in detail, but sentences like "In 2009, Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC's Question Time, amid significant public controversy." are given without explanation and can be a bit confusing. I know there's a link to a more detailed article, but some sort of context would be really helpful. Entire policy sections have no inline citations. Every statistic and electoral result should be referenced somewhere (including tables). I don't think the article is too detailed; the size is about right. Adabow (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I especially like the Breakaway parties section, but can't think how to improve it. It's possibly out of date, but still pretty relevant, as the BNP does seem to be fragmenting into smaller groups. The policies are sourced from ref 15, which is used a lot, but more instances of it could easily be added. I've added a bit to the Question Time appearance, but might add more again. Many thanks for reviewing this difficult article. James^x12345 09:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reviewer is on the right track. This article is too long and detailed, and a Good Article must have a summary style. As a rule of thumb, 100KB is the maximum article size, and this one is 30% larger. This point is key. The article is going to have to change a lot to become short enough, and that task plus whatever else needs to be done is beyond a 7 day hold. So the article should just be failed right away. Now, the other reviewer comments and nominator improvements that have been made are useful, but might get lost, become unnecessary, or need to be redone in the shuffle of shortening the article. So it's also a matter of doing first things first. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100kb as a maximum article size isn't something I've heard of before. A great number of GAs and FAs, for example Sea and General relativity are quite a bit longer again. This has been trimmed from 180kb, which was too long, but I can't see 30kb of redundant material that can be chopped out. A full {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} takes several lines, and almost all of the 250+ cites are of that kind, and there is a full bibliography as well. The bibliography could be trimmed to not include books not used for cites, and that might well take it down by a few kb, but why? I believe the software can cope with pages of up to 2048kb or something, although it would get quite slow, but 130kb is not unheard of. If there is anything you feel does not belong in the article, do say, but articles about political parties are always quite long, and the BNP is an unusual and quite bizarre party. (If you're unfamiliar with them, have a look through the articles on their website - the comments at the bottom are the best bit.) In short, I don't think reducing the size of the article would make it any better or more useful to the reader, but am open to persuasion. James^x12345 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diderot's dreams is correct in the ~100K max (see WP:SPLITSIZE), however this is based on readable prose size. This article has 49K of readable prose. Adabow (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 100K is indeed a total size limit, and is an old rule of thumb from a few years ago-- but is the average point at which at article should be split-- sometimes a little sooner, sometimes the article can be a little bigger. The new recommended limit, from WP:SPLITSIZE, is 40K to 100K of readable text. Not 100K-- that is the absolute no matter what limit. This article has 62KB of readable text (not 48KB) by my estimate (as calculated from a cut and paste to Open Office of a selection of the article from the title to the beginning of the reference section). At this size, the guideline recommends "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".

Midnightblueowl, I suggest you read the new guideline yourself and apply it. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the article again, I can't see where it doesn't meet the criteria. It has changed a huge amount since the review began, so the table at the top does not (in my opnion) represent the article in its current state. I have tried to address the concerns expressed, but the comments made may still be valid in places where they haven't been addressed properly by me. I will be able to do a bit of work over the next few days if some direct criticisms are forthcoming. James^x12345 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]