Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gateway Protection Programme/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2015 [1].
Gateway Protection Programme[edit]
- Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a refugee resettlement scheme operated by the British government since 2004. A longstanding good article, I unsuccessfully nominated it for FA status some five and a half years ago. After a long break from editing, I returned to Wikipedia recently and saw that the article was in need of updating. New source material had also been published in the meantime, and I have been able to use it to update and expand the article. The article is extremely stable (mainly because few other editors have bothered to edit it, leaving me as almost the sole author, which may be a problem - I don't know). I hope that it covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well-written enough to now be promoted. I stand ready to act to remedy any shortcomings in the article identified during this process. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Dead links
- FN17/18 are formatted as a report series, but they're actually conference presentations
- Be consistent in when you include locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikkimaria, I'm looking into this now. Just a query about your FN17/18 point: I used Template:Cite conference for these, so I'm a bit confused by your comment. Could you clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. The issue is distinguishing the conference details from the publication details. You will want to include the editors and ISBN for the proceedings, and I would suggest publisher as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks. All of the issues you highlight should now be fixed, although I've posted a question here about why the conference paper citation parameters are appearing in a strange order in the reference list. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No reply there, but I think I've resolved this myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks. All of the issues you highlight should now be fixed, although I've posted a question here about why the conference paper citation parameters are appearing in a strange order in the reference list. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. The issue is distinguishing the conference details from the publication details. You will want to include the editors and ISBN for the proceedings, and I would suggest publisher as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jim[edit]
An interesting article. A few comments
- I made two edits, tweaking the text and removing two dup links
- In your refs, web copies documents that exist in real life don't need retrieval dates, that's for web only pages
- The title of the article is understood in headings, I'd suggest "Refugees resettled" instead of "Refugees resettled under the programme" and "evaluation" instead of "Programme evaluation"
I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jimfbleak. I'll look to address those points shortly. Thanks for your own edits to the article, too. Do you have a suggestion for an alternative title for the first section heading, Programme details? I agree with the suggestion to remove the redundant "programme", but "Details" as a header doesn't quite work for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered about that one, but I agree that "Details" isn't good. There's no point forcing the policy, so I'm happy for it to stand unless anyone else objects. In my own FAs I tend to write very short stubs to avoid redlinks. That's my preference, not policy, and you are under absolutely no obligation to do it, just floating the idea. It may not be worth it for you because most of my stubs are for plants, insects and parasites which, as species, are notable by definition, so one sentence and a ref is enough. That may not be the case with yours. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the other two headings and left the programme details one as it is. I think that I included the red links when I first started working on the article in the hope that they would inspire people to write articles on those topics. I might try to create some stubs at some point, but have a few other articles I want to focus on at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the other two headings and left the programme details one as it is. I think that I included the red links when I first started working on the article in the hope that they would inspire people to write articles on those topics. I might try to create some stubs at some point, but have a few other articles I want to focus on at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered about that one, but I agree that "Details" isn't good. There's no point forcing the policy, so I'm happy for it to stand unless anyone else objects. In my own FAs I tend to write very short stubs to avoid redlinks. That's my preference, not policy, and you are under absolutely no obligation to do it, just floating the idea. It may not be worth it for you because most of my stubs are for plants, insects and parasites which, as species, are notable by definition, so one sentence and a ref is enough. That may not be the case with yours. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- sorry but this review has been open more than six weeks and seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.