Talk:Mike Gapes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: there are some comments below that should be addressed before we move on with the last part of the GA review. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you for your comments! I have trimmed and summarised the political views section, so hopefully, it doesn't read as disjointed anymore. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That section looks a lot better, thanks for making those changes. More comments coming shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: just a couple more changes to make (see Prose and Sources), then I'll do my own run-through for the nitpicky stuff, and then we'll be just about there! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was his change of party removed from the lead, if his party membership is in the lede then all of them should be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was, his change of party is still in the lead as of the latest revision to the article (and the previous dozen I checked). Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

[[1]] looks like it removes it. Ahh its mentioned twice in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: let me know when you have finished making edits and I will do the final review for pass/fail GA standard. We're close to done I'd say! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you for being so patient with me! I think I have finished my edits now 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All done! This article passes GA standard. Congratulations to you and to everyone else who worked on it. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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.	There are some issues with uncited sentences - the list of countries he's traveled to as MP, the 1983 election loss. The paragraph about 2010 re-election and having to step down as chair is also uncited. "In 2007, the committee reported..." - unclear which committee is being referred to. Made final set of tweaks and changes. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass.
	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).	The ProgressOnline source 404s, though the archive version works. If you can find a new non-archive link that would be great, otherwise tag it as a dead link. Same with politics.co.uk The DODS people source doesn't work either in original or archived form. Please fix or remove the information cited to it. The Jewish Chronicle, looking through previous discussions in the RSN, should probably be noted in the text - i.e. "In such and such year, Gapes was described by the Jewish Chronicle as being targeted by so and so..." HuffPost is probably ok as it is not a "contributor" piece. Current source 48 ("agonizing every day") needs to be given its source (the Independent). Issues addressed. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass - no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig turns up a couple things, which are clearly copying from Wikipedia, and a few long quotations which are appropriate and adequately cited. Manual spot check looks good. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This comment covers 3a, 3b, and 4: I think this article has issues with focus and coverage. Like many articles about political figures, it seems to include a lot of information included simply because the information exists. In other words, WP:SUMMARY style and balance are not well considered throughout. The section on political views are particularly subject to this tendency. The sections on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the House of Lords just appear to regurgitate statements of Gapes without context. I found a number of articles of Gapes talking about other topics which are not included - not that they should be! The article is not a forum for all of Gapes' political views to be listed comprehensively - in any case that's probably not possible. If there is more broad summary or analysis of Gapes' political orientation, that would be more helpful - the section on Corbyn is better than the others, for instance. An article like David Watts Morgan or Bill Bowman (Scottish politician) might be helpful as an example. The idea is to turn the article from a disjointed series of statements into a more readable and summarized encyclopedic account of this individual. Issue mostly addressed, I'll do final cleanup in my own runthrough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See above
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Infobox image is fine. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Are there no other images of Gapes available? Not at a constituency meeting, or meeting with the Dalai Lama? I understand it could be tough, but the article is not very well-illustrated at present, so any relevant images, even if not of Gapes himself, would be good to add. I see one on Commons of him at a Foreign Affairs briefing (Richard Ottaway MP, Bob Ainsworth MP, Mike Gapes MP (left to right) (8141325619).jpg) that could work. Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.