I was initially planning to hold off on a spelling/grammar review until the end, but I figure that I should just put it down now so that the edits can be made sooner rather than having to wait again after a second round of edits is made. Here we go:
The way I understand it, the group's name is "London Forum". I'm seeing it referred to throughout the text at some points as "the Forum", though this abbreviation is never made explicit. If the organization is going to be referred to in a shortened proper noun, then that should be explicitly established in the lead as an alternative name. If it's not a common alternative name, then use "London Forum" to refer to the group throughout the text of the article rather than the shortened form.
The sentence
However, following a year-long exposé on the far-right by Patrik Hermansson and legal difficulties faced by the group face later on that year, the London branch did not hold events since May 2017, although regional branches have continued
probably should be appended with a "to do so." It doesn't ring true to my ear as it's currently written.
The sentence Turner made an antisemitic speech featuring blood libel accusations against Jewish people can probably be shortened to {{Turner made an antisemitic speech featuring blood libel accusations against Jews}}, which is the redirect target for "Jewish People". "Jewish people" usually gets preceded with a definite article, and it also sounds overly formal.
The proper name of the Sunday paper associated with the Daily Mail is The Mail on Sunday, not Mail on Sunday. I know that it's odd that the two have a different italicization and capitalization for the word "the", but such appears to be the case.
Aside from the above, I don't see any major grammar/syntax errors. Likewise, I don't see any spelling errors. After the lead is re-written (per below), I'll give it a look, and update to describe any copyediting I might suggest.
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
As of now, there only remain minor copyediting issues. I'll take a look at them more closely when I get back to my computer, though I expect that once I make a few minor edits that this will pass.
Some additional things relating to the manual of style:
Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article contents. I'm seeing reference in the lead to U.S.-inspired groups, even though it's not covered at all in the article body, except with a rather vague statement that the group's ideology is becoming globalized. If it's a fraction of a sentence in the body, it's probably not worth a quarter of the lead.
Along a similar vein to the above, the lead doesn't currently mention that 2015 Mail on Sunday investigation/STING. It's probably the single activity that grabbed the most coverage from reliable sources, so it probably should be included in the lead.
The lead is also too fragmented right now. Try writing a solid summary paragraph of the article, and that should be the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, the article's lead needs to contain a summary of its most important contents.
Per MOS:WTW, be careful when using terms like "Neo-Nazi" and "terrorist". They should be attributed to whomever is making the claim. I'm not seeing the term mentioned in the body of Richard Edmonds, for instance, so I'd be similarly hesitant to include claims here in WikiVoice unless there's really good sourcing. Vice doesn't really cut it for that sort of thing, since it's MREL on RSP. Similarly, when high-quality papers tend to attribute "Neo-Nazi" to comments an individual has made rather than as an to the individual, it's generally best to follow their lead. Please review each use of the term "Neo-Nazi" or "terrorist" to ensure complaince with WP:WTW.
Aside from the above, I don't see major MOS issues. There's a minor one with MOS:SANDWICH, but that's not a GA-relevant portion of the manual of style and I don't see an easy fix.
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).
There are sources that can be used to verify all of the details. However, there are a number of things I'm finding that have failed verification in my first read through the article and its sources.
The individual "Richard Miller" is referred to as a barrister who was disbarred after publicly expressing admiration for Hitler. The source for this claim is this article in The Independent. The article does not mention a "Richard Miller"; the individual who was disbarred for the reasons given is referred to by the name "Ian Millard".
The sentences
American neo-Nazi Matthew Heimbach addressed the Forum via video link in 2018 as he was denied entry to the UK to speak at the British Renaissance event in Southport, organised by Jez Turner and disgraced former UKIP Parliamentary candidate Jack Sen. Sen, who spoke at the London Forum in June 2015, had previously been suspended from UKIP after sending an allegedly anti-Semitic tweet to Liverpool Wavertree Labour candidate Luciana Berger.
are sourced to this article from Vice. The article from Vice does not mention "Jack Sen", "UKIP", nor "Luciana Berger". I'm unsure where this error came from, but I can't find an immediate fix. Unless there is one, this content should be removed immediately as a possible BLP violation.
The phrase
Finnish nationalist Kai Murros called in the Forum for a violent fascist revolution, which would involve brigades of masked blackshirts "storming universities and dragging academics out into the streets"
is sourced to that same Vice article. There's a source there, but the source doesn't actually support those quotes being quotes of Murros himself. The quotes are in the voice of the Vice reporter; they need to be attributed as such.
The sentences
Participants in the gathering were not told its exact location; they met at the nearby railway station and were escorted individually and in pairs to the hotel by former private school art teacher Michael Woodbridge, who was carrying a book by British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Mosley and wore a lapel pin with the BUF logo. \ Members laughed at the mention of "ashes rising from the death camps' crematoria" in Auschwitz; applauded a speaker who talked of destroying "Jewish-Zionist domination"; mocked the Charlie Hebdo massacre, describing an African leader at its ceremony as "some Negro" and cheered at the mention of a brigade of Spanish Nazi-aligned Fascists
are written in WikiVoice. The Times of Israel doesn't actually put it in their own voice; they attribute the reporting to WP:DAILYMAIL. At minimum, the content needs to be attributed to reporting from The Mail on Sunday; the TOI source cited doesn't appear to be independently verifying the reporting and it's an unsigned staff report.
The sentence
The headline speaker at the event was Spanish Nazi sympathizer Pedro Varela, who referred to children of mixed-race parentage as "blackos" and described same-sex parents as "making a monster family".
is sourced to this article in Haaretz. The article itself doesn't always attribute to The Daily Mail, but the "blackos" quote and the quote on same-sex parents are actually attributed to WP:DAILYMAIL by the Israeli newspaper. This needs in-text attribution; the report from Haaretz doesn't support the statements in its own voice (and it even won't make an affirmative claim that he's actually a self-described Nazi; it hedges by saying "reportedly"). If you'd like to support the characterization of the individual's beliefs as being Neo-Nazi while using a properly reliable source that puts the claim in its own voice, this Times of Israel piece that' already cited in the article would suffice. But, that source also attributes the text of the quotes, to The Mail, so attribution on that sort of stuff would still be advisable.
More generally, there are a lot of unattributed statements sourced to Hope not Hate/Searchlight. The community's consensus is that this is an advocacy group that should be used for attributed statements of fact, with the reliability of those statements being case-by-case. The date that the forum emerged should probably be attributed to Hope not hate in this case. The statement that Steven Steadman is an organizer for the group should also be attributed (this appears to come from where the source calls him a "hapless organizer", which seems a bit like the sort of thing we want to avoid using in characterizing people when using this source.
The sentence
The group's events bring together neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, alt-right students, antisemitic conspiracy theorists and former British National Party (BNP) activists.
is supported by the aforementioned source from Vice. The source describes one event; it would be better to say that the group's events "have brought together neo-Nazis...", rather than using the present tense. Other sources cited in the article seem to say that the group experienced significant dysfunction post-2017. The 2018 Vice article is actually covering the February 2017 conference, so there's no contradiction in the sources on this, but the sources don't quite support the current claim in the article. This is obviously a very minor thing, but I figured I'd list it seeing as I've read through the whole thing once.
There's a reference to a blog post by Community Security Trust. Ordinarily, this sort of thing would be fine for uncontroversial facts so long as it were properly attributed as an advocacy group. I'm not sure an unsigned blog post like this would be entirely reliable in the context of the actions of living people (see WP:BLPSPS), especially when that same group was advocating for the subject of the blog post's arrest. For sources on the original content of the speech, The Jewish Chronicle seems to have coverage and is considered generally reliable on RSP. The conviction can be sourced to the BBC. It's almost certainly better to cite the generally reliable news organizations than to cite the blog post.
Reliable sources are cited throughout the article; the recent edits have ensured compliance with this requirement. As a result, I'm changing this to a pass.
with Jeremy Bedford-Turner (a self-described fascist more commonly known as Jez Turner) as one of its leading figureheads
the Hope not Hate source doesn't actually say what he's "more commonly" known as. It presents a nickname, but it would be a bit of extrapolation to make the claim that the nickname is his more commonly known name. The Vicesource is similarly unhelful in establishing what he's more commonly known as, though it does list a nickname. It might be better to say "... known also as Jez Turner)..." so that we don't run into novel interpretation issues.
On my read through after the most recent round of edits, it looks like the article is free of original research. I'm moving this criterion to pass. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
I left this unreviewed on my first read through because I was asking for a few content changes, and I wanted to see how they would turn out. At this point, on my second read through, the article appears to be almost entirely written from a neutral point-of-view. The sole exception of is picture caption mentioned below, which fails verification and has associated WP:DUE concerns relating to the extent to which the London Forum's members actually draw from Mosley himself (as opposed to other far-right figures). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
There are suitable images for inclusion. It may be worth it to throw in the logos of the BUF or some other related images. Since these images exist, it would be better for the article to put them in rather for there to be none.
On my read through the updated version, I noticed that there was content inserted about Mosley. While the content is reliably sourced in the body of the article, there isn't a source given for the current picture caption. The source from JC doesn't seem to make the claim that there are members of the group that are in it, nor that he's commonly idolized. It does indicate that one individual associated with London Forum is in the Mosley group. The image caption needs to change.
@Mikehawk10: Thank you for taking the time to review this and read through the sources, and hanks for providing me with some good advice and sources – apologies for the errors. I've made the changes you've requested here, please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article (or if I have missed anything). Thank you! —AFreshStart (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
