Talk:Centre-left politics/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright so right off the bat I’m not seeing any maintenance tags or any other reason to quick fail, so I’m just going to jump right into the article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and precise, SPaG is correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is the appropriate length and depth for the article size. Meets MoS requirements for layout, WtW, Fi and LI.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are provided in the appropriate section at the bottom of the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checked citations, sources are reliable and back up their corresponding claims inline.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are backed up by inline citations
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran it through copyvio detector, after reviewing them I didn't find any copyvios within the article. Checked through the sources now, couldn’t find any book or PDF copyvios either
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses the primary components of the topic and describes the topic broadly.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not go into unnecessary detail, providing summaries of complex topics and all sub-topics are spun into their own articles linked with hatnotes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article complies with NPOV and does not give any one opinion undue precedence
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is generally stable, doesn’t change from day to day and no edit warring as far as I can see
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The only image in the article is tagged with its copyright status and is free content
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image in the article is correctly captioned and relevant to the corresponding article text
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets GA criteria, passed GAN

Prose

“The centre-left is more likely to support environmental policies over the centre-right, but environmentalism is a relatively low priority issue in electoral politics and this is not a consistent trend.” Could this be rephrased to be more concise? I had to read this a few times to understand what it meant

“By the beginning of the 21st century, the centre-left had almost entirely overtaken farther left groups in politics globally” This should say “further” instead of “farther” as it is not a physical distance — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimensionalFusion (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made both changes. I'll also note that in the version that I nominated, "Green politics" was its own subheading with the others, as the cited sources list it with the others. An IP editor removed it and has been repeatedly deleting it whenever it's restored, even after being asked not to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Alright thanks for fixing it-

As for the IP, have you reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is specifically restricted to obviously malicious things like blanking pages or inserting gibberish. For now I've restored the sourced version of that section and added a note explaining that reliable sources are necessary for the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.