Jump to content

Talk:Parliamentary Monitoring Services/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator:Cirt (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn  21:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing the review, Seabuckthorn. Please feel free to take your time, no rush, — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Seabuckthorn  15:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
      • Major Point 1: Political research "The company researches the activities of … formerly Huveaux PLC." (summarised well in the lead)
      • Major Point 2: Commentary "Colin Doeg, author of … as a "well-known political lobbying firm"." (summarised well in the lead)
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
      • Major Point 1: Political research "The company researches the activities of … formerly Huveaux PLC." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
      • Major Point 2: Commentary "Colin Doeg, author of … as a "well-known political lobbying firm"." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
        • Parliamentary Monitoring Services is a United Kingdom-based political research and publishing company.
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
    • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
      • Fix "Zetter noted in Public Affairs in Practice: ". What follows is his interpretation, so a verb like "assesses" or "opines".
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done
None


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: Yes
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
    • "comprehensive service",[3]
    • "Comprehensive service covering the proceedings of Westminster and European Parliaments as well as US Congress."[3]
    • "well-known political lobbying firm".[4] (Lead)
    • "well-known political lobbying firm".[4] (Commentary)
    • "revealed that, for the first time, more Conservatives were educated in state schools than in private schools".[8]
    • "regular remunerated employment" … .[17]
    • "Without parliamentary monitoring, political news and political intelligence no public affairs campaign can hope to succeed."[20]
    • "The Department does not compile personal profiles on MPs. We do have access to parliamentary reference works such as Dods and in order to provide, in a cost-effective way, such reference information to the large number of officials drafting parliamentary answers we subscribe to Parliamentary Monitoring Services Ltd. (PMS)."[24] (Random check on source 24, successful, "Mr. Andrew Smith: The Department does not compile personal profiles on MPs. We do have access to parliamentary reference works such as Dod's and in order to provide, in a cost-effective way, such reference information to the large number of officials drafting parliamentary answers we subscribe to Parliamentary Monitoring Services Ltd. (PMS).")
    • "a political research, publishing, polling and campaigning company".[25]
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images (None)

Images:
(NA)

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):
  2. Check for copyright status:
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):


As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

  • Fix "Zetter noted in Public Affairs in Practice: ". What follows is his interpretation, so a verb like "assesses" or "opines".


This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm glad to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best, --Seabuckthorn  02:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, changed word, per recommendation of GA Reviewer, Seabuckthorn, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm right in this recommendation. WTW are the hardest to judge for me. If you think I've committed a mistake, please feel free to revert. --Seabuckthorn  04:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn  04:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]