Talk:Gordon Brown/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Feel free to help with this

Notified: Philip Stevens (talk · contribs), Tpbradbury (talk · contribs), Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), Robin48gx (talk · contribs), Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Viewfinder (talk · contribs), Timrollpickering (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KEPT---TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. The article is in really good shape. I have identified the following issues for improvement:

• There is a few {{fact}} tags.
• Fix the following disambiguation links

done, Tom B (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I did fix the original ones but a live link means any that are subsequently added to article will show up, Tom B (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I am talking about links to the word press.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes someone can fix that and then tomorrow someone else can insert another ambiguous link. When you left your message on 21 June there were 4 ambiguous links including American president, i fixed them but more ambiguous links have been added since i fixed all of them, Tom B (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind fixing the new one that popped up. It is unlikely a new disambiguation link will be added every day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

thought i'd replied here but maybe i did it on main talk page. fixed them as you asked including one for geoffrey robinson, i think the disambig tool says - i'm having trouble accessing - there's still an ambiguous robinson link but i can't find it anywhere, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fix the following deadlinks

done all but AOL video one, checklinks tool says all Times links are dead but they're not, Tom B (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to spread the images throught the article instead of having them paired up like they are. Done

easily doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not enthused about the image placement, but I can live with it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed one picture, is it better? It is not easy spreading the pictures out andkeeping the pictures relative to the text. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

• Could the bulleted text be converted to prose. Done

doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could the styles section be converted to prose. It could say something like Until YYYY, Brown was referred to as XXX1. Upon completion of his X degree on MM DD, YYYY,^{[citation #]} his title became XXX2. In YYYY, he assumed the title of XXX3 upon such and such occurrence.^{[citation #]} etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll do this. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with British title. Could you say something about whether right honorable is a title for life.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the Privy council needs to be merged with another section or expanded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've expanded the PC part (membership is for life, unless one resigns), and moved it to the "Honours" section. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now the section has three stubby subsections. Please merge them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Make sure all footnotes follow punctuation.

easily doable, anyone can do with peer reviewer tool Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could you post a link to the peer reviewer tool? I've tried "checklinks" and "reflinks", which filled in some gaps, but probably not the gaps you're wanting filled ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was in response to Tom B. The tools I've used so far are Checklinks and Reflinks, neither of which seem best suited to the task at hand ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• How is this coming. I see at least four refs following spaces. I have not looked closely at other characters that they follow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see that many of these have been corrected. However, some citations follow alphanumeric characters. E.G., in the WP:LEAD see "Brown has a PhD in history[2]". All citations should follow a punctuation mark such as ,.?!)]"';: etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also, make sure all citations follow as opposed to precede punctuation. occurrences like "Sir Leonard Figg[99]." are also problematic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Commented below, but for the record this issues should both be fixed. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not fixed. See examples given.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, got it - I hadn't realised refs mid sentence were bad. Fixed now. I'd managed to completely miss the Leonard Figg one, not sure how. Also fixed. Done another "."-search in Firefox, and manually scanned for refs mid sentence. I don't suppose there's a tool to check this stuff? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mid-sentence is O.K. if it follows a punctuation mark such as ,;:)] etc. See refs 7 and 8.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I now notice that there are numerous places where punctuation is malplaced. There should be no spaces preceding commas or periods.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll fix. I did some copy-editing yesterday, but must have missed some. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should now be fixed. I used Firefox's "find-as-you-type" function to search for " ," and " .". I also searched for fullstops and commas to check that refs or spaces followed them. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that too many spaces have been removed. Sentences should be separated by spaces. Problems like "full third term.[52]Political" exist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should be fixed now - just done a search for each and every fullstop. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please reorganize to avoid one-line paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Done ?

doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to reorganize the paragraph about the children so that it does not look like two stubby paragraphs. Maybe mention the living children first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Done

I don't want to micromanage this process, so I accept the efforts that have been made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please make all images compliant with WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Still not compliant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Working on it. I'll list issues below. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Infobox: I changed the image tag to read image = [[File:Gordon Brown Davos 2008 crop.jpg|200px|alt=Portrait: Gordon Brown, wearing a business suit]] per Template:Infobox documentation. No joy! Any advice from infobox experts? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ask at the talk page for WP:ALT. They are very responsive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• In hand - see here (and no work for me - great!) Once the infobox is fixed to allow alt text, I'll action this. I gather the signature also requires alt text, so I'll do that too. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• You still might get a faster response at the talk page for WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd already posted there ;-) The portrait now has alt text; the signature field doesn't - as far as I can see that's not been fixed in the infobox template yet. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• ...and that's it! All done. This is the first time I've done WP:ALT text in many a long year, and never on Wikipedia, so if someone could double-check my work I'd appreciate it. I'm still looking for a solution to the infobox portrait issue listed above, too. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fantastic! Just the portrait and the signature in the infobox to do now. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both the disambiguation checker and the links checker above are showing new problems. I would like to say that at whatever time I approve retention of the quality rating that the links were taken care of. Thus, I would like someone to fix the new problems that have popped up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

' Done Checklinks [[1]] looks ok to me now.  Done also reflinks [[2]]  Done also disambiguation links [[3]] all good.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

• Tom, this is a very good article and I am having trouble convincing myself one way or the other. Do you have any commentary on the other comments that you have not addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, yes i've added some comments. it's pretty good article. as he's become PM since it was promoted it is harder to maintain and proseline tends to get added. i'd only generally demote if you're sure an article is clearly below other GAs, in order to avoid bureaucracy of demotion then repromotion, plus Off2riorob maybe able to make some headway here, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I missed this, I would have liked to help. The article is currently locked down with a little edit dispute over the detail in the lede. When the article is unlocked I would be available to address these small concerns. Off2riorob (talk 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes please this would be very good - see comments above. some should be easy to fix like the images and punctuation. the harder thing is to get a neutral, flowing article without loads of one-line paragraphs detailing the latest news, thanks very much i'll come back when i can Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Politician articles are hard because some supporters will try to cover up relevant information that is not completely favorable. Some may even try to get the good article award revoked, as could be the case here (or it is a coincidence)Calmano (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)