Talk:John Tyndall (far-right activist)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this in detail over the next few days: thanks for bringing an important article to GAN. Vanamonde (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Vanamonde. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All issues addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issues with source formatting

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No issues

   C. It contains no original research:

   No issues.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool flags nothing of concern, and I can find no issues via spot-checks. AGF on offline sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article is completely focused, no tangential material.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All minor neutrality concerns addressed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no recent issues with stability.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Image licensing seems to check out: most images with appropriate free use licences, one appropriate fair use image.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Caption issue has been addressed: no other issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

• Is "British Unionist" something that can be linked or explained?
  • I've added a link to Unionism in Ireland on the first mention of the term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the cause of the British Empire" sounds both slightly POV and also slightly confusing: perhaps "cause of preserving the British Empire" would be better?
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I removed one instance of the phrase "the Jews", but have noticed a few more, so I thought I'd flag it here. It is my belief that using "the X" to describe any people is considered derogatory: especially so when the phrase has been used in the course of persecution of one kind or another. I'd prefer it be replaced, with "Jewish people" or even just "Jews".
  • A fair point. Tyndall appears to have referred to "the Jews" but unless quoting directly from him it is probably best to use "Jews". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, Tyndall would, I imagine, but that's as good reason as any for us not to :)
• " In later years he expressed the view" I'm guessing this means Jordan, but it is not obvious.
  • Oh no, it means Tyndall. But I can totally see how the wording would convey the impression that Jordan is the one in question. I'll alter the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Where is the "[i.e. Nazism]" in the quotation coming from? Is that in the quote? If it is not, but is in the source, it should be mentioned, but outside the quotation marks.
  • I've removed it as I don't think that it is in the source. However, we probably do need to find a way to make it clear to the reader that "National Socialism" is just the longer name for "Nazism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest a footnote, and since it would be the only such, it's probably okay to format it like a reference.
      • I've added some additional prose to the lede instead. That way, the fact that "National Socialism" is Nazism is already made clear before any mention is made of groups like the National Socialist Movement or the World Union of National Socialists. I think that that may be the best option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Tyndall took the issue to the high court, who overturned the NF's expulsion." Since this is a private organization, this sounds odd: is it possible to explain why the court overturned the expulsion?
  • Unfortunately the two cited sources do not go into depth on this issue, so I am unable to expand the article prose here. Perhaps ownership of the NF was somehow in Tyndall's name or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay.
• "proved more successful" successful is a dodgy term WRT political parties: perhaps "electorally successful"
  • A very good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "began critiquing Webster's homosexuality" I find this phrasing odd: surely it was the fact of homosexuality that was being criticized, rather than the way Webster expressed it, which is what it currently sounds like. I would suggest "began criticizing Webster for his homosexuality".
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Tyndall described the BNP as the "SDP of the far right"" I believe it is considered bad style to use a link within quotes. You could remove the link there, and add a parentheses saying (referring to the SDP) with a link in the parentheses.
  • I've amended the prose to the following: "At the conference, Tyndall described the BNP as the "SDP of the far right", thereby referencing the recent growth of the centrist Social Democratic Party." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Surely Tyndall did not promise to become the "largest extreme-right group in the UK"?
  • According to Copsey, who is cited here, Tyndall intended to make the BNP "the strongest faction on the far right". Copsey is not directly quoting Tyndall here, but is clearly conveying the general meaning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay.
• I would suggest moving the quotebox beginning "Immigration into Britain by..." to the right, as it is disrupting the flow of text somewhat.
  • If it's okay, I disagree on this point. I have always found that the page aesthetics can get messy when everything is aligned to the right of the page; alternating images and quoteboxes between the left and right helps space things out and avoid this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's merely an issue of aesthetic preferences, really, so I cannot compel you, and it's hardly a big deal.
• I'm not sure that paying a deposit to contest an election is a universal feature even in democracies: is there a link that can be provided there?
  • Good point. I'll add a link to Deposit (politics) at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is necessary to have a sentence about the cause of death, even if that is a statement by a newspaper saying causes were unknown.
  • Unfortunately the obituaries I have looked at don't provide a cause of death (or even say that the cause was unknown). If this information comes to light in future however then I agree that it would make for a worthy addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Huh, this is really weird. Is there absolutely no information here? Not even in primary sources?
      • I've looked in Copsey and can't find anything there. Almost all of the other sources were published before his death. Maybe the cause of death was just never publicly released? Or never ascertained? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Overall, sourcing is excellent: the one thing I would like to avoid is the use of the BNP website, especially as it appears to be redundant.
  • I have removed the deadlink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• The caption of the picture of Rockwell doesn't make it clear that it is of Rockwell: it could suggest Tyndall, too.
  • A very good point. I'll make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• I have a few issues with the structure of this article, though the prose is generally good. First, I think the use of "Biography" as a section is misleading, because "personal life" definitely falls under "Biography" even in the sense that Wikipedia uses the latter term. What I would suggest is breaking off the early life section into a level two header, and retitling the remainder "political career."
  • I've carved up the "Biography" section into two, although have gone for a slightly different approach to the one that you have proposed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is much better, but my objection now is to the acronyms in section titles. Removing these is worth the extra length, IMO; and you can omit articles in section titles for the sake of brevity.
      • I've gone with the full length names of the groups in question; does this work okay? It's a little lengthy, but not excessively IMO. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Second, the section "From the National Labour Party to the Greater Britain Movement: 1958–67" is both too long, and has a title that is too long.
  • I've divided this one in two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• In fact, a lot of the sub-sections in the "Biography" section are rather long: surely some of them could be bifurcated into multiple level 3 headers?
  • I've carved the BNP section into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• While I will wait for your responses to the points I have raised, I have to say that overall, this is a very very solidly written article. Having written about major political figures myself, I know it can be tricky, but you have done an excellent job.
  • Thanks Vanamonde! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • One more issue from me; do you think that it would be better if the article began with "was a British far-right political activist" than the present "was a British Neo-Nazi political activist". We already have the word "Neo-Nazi" appearing in the second sentence and there are arguments presented in the article that groups like the BNP were not Neo-Nazi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • You are obviously better acquainted with the sources than I am: after a brief review, though, it seems that a majority of the sources do refer to him as a Neo Nazi: in which case we should do the same. While I agree that this is a touchy issue, we are under no obligation to mince our words, but simply to present the sources accurately.
• Okay, we're nearly done here. Couple of minor points left, and I'll give this a final look later today and should be able to pass it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I've covered everything, Vanamonde. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Excellent job, passing this now. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)