Talk:United Kingdom Election Results

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

Good articleUnited Kingdom Election Results has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
August 9, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 25, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the website United Kingdom Election Results is listed as a resource by the Parliament of Australia, The University of New South Wales, and The University of York?
Current status: Good article

Removed text[edit]

  • From Reception; I plan to summarise this material but the section is called "Reception", not "list of citations from other authors":

Boothroyd's United Kingdom Election Results is cited as a reference in the book Human Development Report 2004: Cultural Liberty in Today's Diverse World by United Nations Development Programme, published by Oxford University Press.[1] The Politics and Public Administration Group of the Parliament of Australia referenced the site for information about the British National Party in a 2002 work "Interpreting Election Results in Western Democracies".[2] It is also used as a reference in Territorial Politics and Health Policy: UK Health Policy in Comparative Perspective (2004) by Scott L. Greer, published by Manchester University Press,[3] Regionalism After Regionalisation published by Amsterdam University Press,[4] Deliberative Polling (2004) by Eva Johanna Schweitzer,[5] and Popular Delusions: How Social Conformity Molds Society and Politics (2007) by Stephen Coleman.[6]

Authors Oonag Gay and Patricia Leopold reference the site in their book Conduct Unbecoming:The Regulation of Parliamentary Behavior (2004), for information on parliamentary expulsion, writing, "As the author, David Boothroyd, makes clear, expulsion was no bar to further parliamentary career in the eighteenth century."[7]

Valentino Larcinese used Boothroyd's site as a reference, in his study of the 1997 British general election published in the journal Public Choice.[8]

References

  1. ^ United Nations Development Programme (15 July 2004). Human Development Report 2004: Cultural Liberty in Today's Diverse World. Oxford University Press. pp. 55, 110, 113. ISBN 978-0-19-522146-6.
  2. ^ Holland, Ian (27 August 2002). "Interpreting Election Results in Western Democracies". Current Issues Brief. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 2009-06-13. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Greer, Scott L. (10 February 2005). Territorial Politics and Health Policy: UK Health Policy in Comparative Perspective. Manchester University Press. p. 108. ISBN 0-7190-6950-5.
  4. ^ Schrijver, Frans (2006). Regionalism After Regionalisation: Spain, France and the United Kingdom. Amsterdam University Press. p. 378. ISBN 90-5629-428-8.
  5. ^ Schweitzer, Eva Johanna (2004). Deliberative Polling: Ein demoskopischer Ausweg aus der Krise der politischen Kommunikation?. Germany: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. p. 144. OCLC 59081310.
  6. ^ Coleman, Stephen (28 October 2007). Popular Delusions: How Social Conformity Molds Society and Politics. Cambria Press. pp. 183, 271. ISBN 978-1-934043-77-6.
  7. ^ Gay, Oonag, ed. (2004). Conduct Unbecoming:The Regulation of Parliamentary Behavior. Leoplod, Patricia. London: Politico's Publishing (Methuen Publishing Limited). p. 1.
  8. ^ Larcinese, Valentino (June 2007). "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election". Public Choice. 131 (3–4). Springer Netherlands: 387–411. doi:10.1007/s11127-006-9122-0.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll wait til you're done to assess the situation but eight (8) total sources removed seems like a bit much. Hopefully there is a way we can incorporate these sources back into the article, without losing them completely. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know eight seems a lot of sources to remove. I've summarised some in the article and tried to be representative without being inclusive. I can't see what a long list of works citing Boothroyd adds to such a short article. Feel free to add it back if you wish; I'm almost finished the c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably not add back the text itself. Rather, I'll summarize it a bit more, and add it back as footnotes, instead, so it's out of the main article text, therefore keeping in the general spirit of the thrust of your copyediting. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to me like a good compromise; since it's listed as a good article it should conform to the GA criteria. I'm done now so feel free to continue. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom Election Results. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_Election_Results&oldid=1211644467"