Wikipedia:Peer review/Gateway Protection Programme/archive1
Gateway Protection Programme[edit]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone considerable expansion and I would like to get people's thoughts on the article and on further development.
Thanks, Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: The article seems very short for the subject. This could raises questions about its comprehensiveness. In general, however, I found it clear and succinct. Specific issues:-
- Lead: I think you mean "actual" rather than "eventual"
- Programme details
- Why is the first sentence there? It doesn't seem to have any purpose.
- 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?
- 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
- 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?
- 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.
- Resettlement locations: 15 local authorities out of how many? It would be good to know.
- General point: MOS encourages the use of no-break spaces. See WP:NBSP
Hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)