Talk:Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PinkPanda272 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello N Oneemuss. I have read through the page and it looks well written and does not contain any obvious problems. I will start reviewing today, and hope to have it completed in the next 6-7 days. Please bear in mind that it may take a bit longer, as this is my first review. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Hi N Oneemuss, here is my review:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No issues here, spelling and grammar are good throughout, and the relevant MOS sections are followed well. I have fixed a few small punctuation errors myself.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Most sources are reliable and well referenced, the only exception being this one [1] from Lincolnshire Pride Magazine, the author's opinions seem to be fairly biased. The page scores 10.7% on the copyvio detector, nothing notable as the only matches are direct quotes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I can't see any major content ommisions, summary style used well throughout (bar small problem descibed below).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   UKIP seems to have far more coverage in the lead section than the Conservatives, even though they have never won the seat. I understand the reasoning (referendum result, high vote shares etc), but I would suggest slimming it down to provide a more balanced view, as the details are already given in a later section. Everything else is portrayed neutrally and without bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

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

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

   All images are freely licensed and well captioned. A picture of Skegness (if available) would be good as a counterpoint to the one of Boston, and an image of either/both of Matt Warman's predecessors would be good in the

Member of Parliament section.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well written article, references and content are all good. Just a few issues to fix, so I am putting it on hold for a week. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues to fix:

• Change or remove Lincolnshire Pride reference
  •  Done
• Condense UKIP coverage in main section
  • I've done some condensing. Not sure if it's enough though.
    • Looks good, I have condensed slightly more  Done
• Add Skegness image if possible
  • Added. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Nice image, I have edited the caption as there is no context for the Clock Tower  Done
• Repeat the explanatory note for Buckingham in the lead section
  • I removed the part about Buckingham as part of condensing UKIP coverage Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe change 'promoted' for 'moved' in relation to Mark Simmonds' shadow ministerial positions, as he was still a Minister of State when he moved to the Health brief
  •  Done
• Change '...anti-European Union UK Independence Party' to '...Eurosceptic UK Independence Party', makes more sense as that is where the link points to
  •  Done
• Rephrase "...since legally all unprotected constituencies must have electorate size within 5% of the median electorate for unprotected British constituencies" doesn't read very well.
  • @PinkPanda272: "..must be within 5% of the median electorate size.." Does that read better?
    • Good start, I have condensed it slightly more  Done
• The sentence about house prices and wages in the Constituency Profile section is quite long and cumbersome, could do with spitting.
  •  Done
• The graph at the top of the election section states that minor parties that never received more than 5% of the vote are omitted. The Green Party is included, even though they have never met this threshold?
  •  Removed I'd normally allow parties who run 2 elections in a row to be added if they get 2% in at least one, but the Greens didn't in this constituency. Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Good call, looks better now

I think all of the comments have been addressed now. Thank you for the review! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@N Oneemuss and Username6892: Interesting and well-written article, all errors have been promptly fixed, well done. I am now more than happy to promote this as a Good Article. I would also suggest nominating it for DYK to give the article more prominence, there are plenty of interesting facts to use. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)