Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Front (UK)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2018 [1].

National Front (UK)

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fascist party that reached its apogee in Britain during the 1970s, at which point it gained the country's fourth-largest vote share and contributed to a broader shift to the political right under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government in the 1980s. Over the past year I have brought other articles on British fascism (John Tyndall (politician)) and British politics more broadly (Referendum Party) to FA status and it would be nice if this article, currently a GA, could join them. With the issue of far-right resurgence a particular hot topic both in Europe and the United States, it is important that our coverage of the subject is improved here at Wikipedia, and hopefully this FAC shall contribute to that end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Several bare URLs in the reference list
  • Formatting of FN127 doesn't match other sources
  • Fn128: don't repeat publisher as author
  • Per WP:LAYOUT Further reading is generally an independent section not a subsection
  • Jackson 2011 appears to have a second author not listed here
  • I double checked the source. Jackson is the only author of the report, although a Matthew Feldman has written a two-page "Introduction" (more a foreword); hence, Feldman is given as a co-author at the University of Northampton's website, but should not really be considered such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an in-depth journalistic account of the NF based on considerable fieldwork and interviews with members. Although Walker was not himself sympathetic to the NF, his book is actually far less sensationalistic and overtly biased than much of the journalism on far-right topics that we see today. Attesting to the book's reliability, it has repeatedly been cited in academic studies of the NF and far-right in Britain more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

In general, seems in good shape, though quite long. Through the end of History, (so to speak)

  • "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics, the NF has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists." Isn't this a repetition of your opening sentence?
  • The article and the lead are really long - I think the sentence can be left out of the lead. There is no mention of a distinction between far- and extreme-right in the body of text and aren't they automatically neo-fascist by virtue of their postwar status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The NF generated much opposition from left-wing and anti-fascist groups throughout its history," Shouldn't this be "has generated" given it is still ongoing?
  • Again true, and I'll make the change accordingly. Part of the issue here is that the NF has really ceased to be a significant political player since the early 1980s and thus the vast majority of academic and journalistic material that discusses it focuses on the period before that date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the arguments over the location of the party headquarters necessary in such a long article?
  • Perhaps they aren't crucial, but they only take up three short sentences that are part of one paragraph, so I don't think that we're overdoing it here. Including mention of this argument helps to underscore the differences within the party at that time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in spring 1969 assaulted two Labour Party ministers at a public meeting, thus accruing a reputation for rowdiness.[48]" rowdiness seems a light term, but perhaps it's my American English.
  • In the paragraph beginning "The NF capitalised", there are a number of sentences beginning "In the XXX election". I might vary the phrasing a bit.
  • "After a resurgence in fortunes for the party in London at the 1977 GLC election—where they improved on their October 1974 general election result—it planned further marches in the city.[87] " I might use commas, but also you seem to refer to the party with both "they" and "it".
  • "that had previously gone to the NF.[92] NF membership had also declined," back to back NFs.
  • "This party then contested the general elections in 1997 and 2001, but made little impact in either.[119] " I might cut "then".

More later, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt. Your comments are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although previous fascist parties—including the British Union of Fascists, the German Nazi Party, and the Italian National Fascist Party—also took part in elections, rendering this argument obsolete.[135] " the last part seems a bit opiniony and may need to be sourced inline.
  • A very fair point. I've altered the prose to make it very clear that this is the political scientist Stan Taylor's opinion. This will therefore be the first mention of Taylor in the text, so I have also trimmed back what is now the second mention of him to avoid duplication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the sociologist Christopher T. Husbands cautioned against attempts to understand the National Front through comparisons with Italian Fascism or German Nazism as they existed when they were in power because it remained without political office.[142] " Possibly this whole sentence should be divided. I imagine "it" refers to the NF?
  • "Over the course of the NF's history, it has contained various different factions, often with distinct ideological positions. From the party's early days until the Tyndall/Webster split in 1980, the NF's ideology and propaganda output was dominated by the ex-GBM faction.[7] According to Wilkinson, theirs was a leadership "deeply imbued with Nazi ideas"" Are you treating National Front as a plural noun in the British fashion that takes the plural form? This passage looks inconsistent on that point. Similarly, in the last paragraph of this subsection, "faction" seems to be referred to both as "it" and "they
  • "and argued that different races can be ranked on a hierarchy based on their differing abilities.[163]" I might cut the word "their" to avoid having it look like we're saying different races have different abilities.
  • ""negroes... are not fitted to go to white schools or to live in white society".[109] " shouldn't there be a non-breaking space before the ellipsis?
  • "and that black workers prevents unemployed whites getting jobs.[211] " Doesn't seem grammatical. And shouldn't it be past tense?
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-semitism: this section is expressed in the past tense, unlike earlier sections on the NF's views, but there's nothing that says they've changed their position, so I don't see why this is in the past tense.
  • I've switched most of the sentences to present tense. This is a recurring issue with this article, I fear, due to the fact that the vast majority of published sources discuss the NF as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s rather than dealing with its present day, much denuded form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "claim" and its forms are overused in the first few sentences of "Government and the State"
  • "that the British Army should replace rubber bullets with lead ones," I might say "real" instead of "lead". Just preference.
  • " In 1978 it issued a leaflet, How to Spot a Red Teacher, to school pupils.[307]" I don't like the way the title is in the middle, with "to school pupils" at the end.
  • "by ensuring that all those capable of working do so rather than subsiding on unemployment benefits.[277]" I think you mean subsisting, not subsiding.
  • "The NF was not eager to publicise how many branches active across the UK.[327] " I would suppose that something like "how many branches were active across the UK" or something similar but perhaps it is just my American English.
Through Security section.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the most I'm going to be able to do. Two bits of advice:
First, I think you do need to update the antisemitism section, you should have sources on the present position if you are going to detail the past position. I don't think you can source a statement that a party is antisemitic to a 1978 source.
There is virtually no academic or journalistic commentary on the NF as it has existed since the 1990s, hence the heavy focus on the party as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s. I can't find any commentary on the NF's position on Jewish people since that period; equally, I can find nothing suggesting that their position has changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you would have to express it in the past tense and make it clear it is from the 1970s. It's a long enough time and enough change of personnel.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second is a question of tone. Passages such as "During the 1970s, the NF's propaganda regularly presented black people in Britain as a source of crime.[217] This anti-immigrant discourse was similar to that employed against the recently arrived Ashkenazi Jewish community in the late nineteenth century and also echoed the response to gypsies and Huguenots in seventeenth-century England.[218]" There's an extent to which this lends itself to WP:SYNTH because you are equating with a known evil without your establishing a connection between the two--"similar to" is a slender reed. And there's a fair number of zingers that end paragraphs or section, for example, "This literature referred to areas with large African and Asian communities as being "immigrant-infested", a use of language comparing non-white migrants to vermin.[189]" What they say is fair game, but I think you're pounding it into the table there. The reader is as capable of you or I of deciding the NF are a nasty group without needing to be persuaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In both of these cases, the comparisons were drawn my the authors of the cited text (rather than me personally) but I see your point. I'll amend the text to make it clear that it is the authors' opinions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will try get back to this, but I don't have time right now to do a full review due to travel. If it closes before I finish, I'll add comments at the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt. I hope that your traveling goes smoothly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get in a few more comments.
  • "The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance,[284] being concerned with what it perceived as the growing permissiveness of British society," permissive ... permissive. I'd find a synonym.
  • "endorsing Ulster loyalism it never shared the Ulster loyalists' " again a repetition.
  • "Although in its first year the party largely ignored the recently passed 1967 Abortion Act that legalised abortion in Great Britain, " does the "its" prior to "first year" refer to the party or the act? If it refers to the act than "first year" and "recently passed" are redundant.
  • "In the 1970s, the party stressed its belief that education should be suited to the varying academic abilities of different students although did not outright condemn the egalitarian comprehensive school system.[276] " I would cut "egalitarian". This goes to tone. Either the reader has a view regarding comprehensive schools or they do not; if they do not, I would let them form their own.
  • " It called for far greater emphasis on exams and sporting competitions in schools," I might say "examinations" rather than "exams".
To the start of Organization and structure.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by slatersteven

edit

I would rather sources that are 30 years (or more) old are not used to source current statements. They may not have changed their stance, but we also have nothing to say they have not, and a lot can happen in 30 years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: This is arising from my recent alteration of the "anti-Semitism" section", where I switched the past tense text to present tense on the basis of your suggestion. Slatersteven reverted my changes, and has provided this comment to explain their decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the sources. If the sources won't support my suggestions, that's an acceptable reason not to change the text. You've read the sources and I have not. My suggestions are editorial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit

Lead, 1a:

  • Do we need to be told that 1967 was "51 years ago", and do we need to have red, white, and blue colours displayed (and linked, for some reason)?
This is where we judge article excellence, for possible promotion. Bad practice in a set of other articles isn't a strong argument. The infobox is more effective for readers if clutter by redundant info and gaudy colours is removed. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it useful to link "London" in this context?
The general rule is not to link when every eight-year-old on the planet knows what the word refers to. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've scrapped the mention of London at this juncture because there are some concerns (raised at the Talk Page) that it may be incorrect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fourth largest party"—something is missing.
  • We currently have "the UK's fourth largest party in terms of vote share." I don't mind rewording it, but I'm not really sure how that could best be achieved. "the party with the UK's fourth largest vote share", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphens required in both. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "regarding"—would "about" be plainer, simpler?
  • "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, while the National Front's electoral support deteriorated heavily." It's uncertain from the wording whether these two propositions are causally connected. Unsure "heavily" is the best epithet.
  • How about "substantially" in place of "heavily"? Or "significantly"? As for reflecting the impact of causality, how about "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, contributing to a substantial decline in the Front's electoral support"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous: "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics". Is it an equative "or"? (also known as the far-right)? Does it mean extreme right or just the extreme of Br politics? Why not drop "extreme or"?
  • Yes, it is an equative "or" in this case. I'm cautious about dropping "extreme or" because later in the article the NF gets described as "extreme right". I'll expand the prose at this juncture to refer to "the extreme-right or far-right of British politics"; do you think that this does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or use commas: "on the extreme-, or far-right, of". You need the first, hanging comma, from what you say. Or: "on the extreme right (far-right) of". Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure on this point. They are racist, that's certain, but "racism" perhaps is not a fair description of their ideology in the way that "fascism" is. I'm cautious about the opening sentence getting too long with descriptive words; if we add "racist", then an equally valid case could be made for adding "anti-Semitic", "white supremacist", and so on. I also think that the term "racist" is perhaps a bit vague to be used at this point. The racism of the National Front is, for instance, very different from the racism of a white liberal or socialist who might act in a patronising but well-meaning manner to a person of colour; both can be construed as "racism", but they are referring to very different things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the lede, Tony. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

edit

Interesting topic. Notes below....

  • After the BNP, the NF has been the most successful extreme-right group in British politics since the Second World War. - isn't UKIP far right?

  • Not by the reckoning of political scientists (at least, not thus far - the party could always shift its ideology). UKIP has always been more closely akin to the right-wing end of the Conservatives than to the BUF, NF, or BNP; Thatcherite rather than fascist, basically. It spends a great deal of time calling for drastic cuts to the levels of immigration but does not oppose immigration (non-white or otherwise) on principle and certainly does not call for non-white Britons to have their citizenship revoked followed by deportation. Economically, it's all for free markets and privatisation rather than for the national-oriented economic protectionism that typifies the British far-right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contravening his earlier commitment to keep him out, Chesterton welcomed Tyndall into the party - he can't really contravene himself. i'd say "Going back on" or "Ignoring" or something
  • A leadership election produced a strong mandate for Chesterton and his challengers left the party - wasn't it just that he won? Or did they specfically vote on policies as well?
  • In the 1979 general election, the NF mounted the largest challenge of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918 - what does this mean?

This article is very large - having read through it, I get the impression some material is repeated, but I need to go back and check. It is an interesting read though. More tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance - I think this sentence can be removed or merged with the one following.
    • Side comment: Cas, I agree because as an exposed introductory proposition it raises the question of what "permissive" is (it's undefined in the text). Some readers might ask "what behaviour is permitted, and what isn't, in the eyes of the NF?" I do like the "what it perceived as" in the next sentence (the one you're suggesting might open the section). May I also suggest, along the same lines of NPOV, that "regeneration" be in quotes? Tony (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

Well-written work, as always. A few quibbles follow. Feel free to disagree with me on any of those points.

  • You describe Chesterton as a veteran of the Fascist movement in a caption, but not the body; also, it needs a source; also, is there a link we could use for the British fascist movement?
  • I wonder if a short descriptor for the LEL would be useful.
  • This is nitpicky, but I'm not a fan of the term "extreme-right". While it may be accurate, the one-dimensional left-right spectrum misses nuance in many cases, and is particularly dodgy the further you get from mainstream politics. Are there other terms used by the sources?
  • Yes, I'd prefer that.
  • Captions should avoid acronyms, I would say.
  • I wonder if "internment of the country's fascists" could be linked somewhere. The White-minority South African government should definitely be linked, I'd say.

Many thanks for taking a look at this, Vanamonde! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, apologies for the delay: I hope to go through the rest of it soon.
  • "propensity for chanting" chanting political slogans? Or chanting Buddhist prayer? "chanting" is ambiguous, is what I'm saying.
  • "It also stood six candidates" is "stood" in this context a colloquialism? It strikes me as such (nominated would be my choice) but I may be wrong.
  • I don't suppose there's an explanation for the NF's post-1975 decline in the sources?
  • Can you link "statism"?
  • You seem to suggest that the NF's ideology was different from that of classical fascist parties, but don't describe how. I think some detail might be worthwhile, but if it's not available, just drop that; the section is plenty detailed without it.
  • I've reworded a sentence I didn't like the flow of: please let me know if I've changed the meaning.
  • I wonder if we could link Ingroups and outgroups in the quote that refers to them: I suspect most readers may not know what these are, and while we don't usually link inside quotes, for a technical term we could bend the rules, I think.
  • The ideology section has been very carefully written for such a complex topic., and I can find very little to complain. Nice job! I still commend you on your careful writing, but on a second read-through I find myself bothered by length, and now this sounds silly, so I'm striking the latter half of that comment.
  • A more general suggestion, which might be tricky to implement: at 98kb readable prose size and 15k+ words, this is a long article. So, I think we should be looking for ways to prune where possible, particularly if there's any way to remove repetition. One method that suggests itself is the following: merge the "factions" subsection into the history: a lot of that material is already covered, which would maybe allow you to remove a paragraph-worth of stuff.
  • Another method (not mutually exclusive) might be to try to condense all the material about racial prejudice. Yes, it's very important, and I'm sure a lot of the scholarly material focuses on it. But I think taking a step back and trying to combine similar material might help. For instance, there's several paragraphs which touch on the "theory" (in quotes, because scientifically a lot of it is nonsense) about distinct racial groups; if this material were collected in a single place, it might allow you to condense a little bit. Ultimately you know the source material best, so I'm not going to oppose over a specific suggestion, but I do think we need an overall length reduction.
  • In the same vein; I think the paragraph beginning "The NF's published material" could afford to lose some length.
  • I'll look at the rest of that material once you've had a chance to respond above.
  • "local militia throughout the island" does this not apply to Northern Ireland, for whatever reason?
  • "AfroAsian influence" should this be "Afro-Asian", or is this misspelling in the source?
  • "It stated that it would not remain allied to the United States" I'm a bit confused, since I'm guessing "it" means Britain, but the sentence structure before it implies "it" is the NF.
  • "the NF endorsed the right-wing Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party" In the context of which election was this?
  • I've been making copy-edits as I go: please feel free to revert/ask if you disagree with any of my changes
  • Another length-related suggestion: you have a lot of quotes from Tyndall and other members of the NF. Frequently, the nature of the views is quite clear without it being emphasized by Tyndall's quotations. Again, just a suggestion, though.
  • Again for length, you could afford to remove the sentence beginning "This was linked to the idea.." I think.
  • "No adequate sociological sampling" In an encyclopedia article, this phrasing strikes me as odd: academics speak frequently of study methods being inadequate, but it's the sort of detail we can do without, I think, because in my mind the unwritten assumption of every FA is that it's presenting the available information. IMO you could omit the first sentence, and add the methodological detail when you mention the findings from said surveys.
  • Should "South Coast" be capitalized? Unsure.
  • Again looking to edit this for length: I suggest you could omit the sentence beginning "Fielding's interviews with NF..." without losing much. More generally, I think some of the depth of Fielding's analysis could be trimmed here. If you're keen on the material, I'd even recommend a spinoff, simply because the article is so long.
  • the paragraph about attracting youth, under "profile", strikes me as fitting better alongside the other material about demographics.
  • "could be cited as evidence" I'm not a fan of this phrasing: either it has been cited as evidence (in which case we should say so) or Wikipedia is arguing that it could be cited as evidence (which it shouldn't).
  • I've gone with "Alternately, that nine-tenths of the population refused to vote for the Front in its heyday may reflect the K's immunity to the far-right". I've also given this paragraph quite a trimming to get the word count down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if some of the specific statistics could be combined into "electoral performance" from "history" where they currently sit: history could examine the same phenomena without getting into the numbers, thereby partitioning the content a little better.
  • I think that's all I have at the moment. Aside from some minor wording suggestions, I think the bulk of my comments are length-related. While I know we've had longer FAs, I do think the scope of this particular topic is limited enough that it could be done justice in a shorter space. I've made some specific suggestions above, but the general theme is that there's places where the article gets into some fairly detailed sociological analysis, where you could afford to trim a little. It's not even that that is bad content; that's just you can afford to cut, given the overall picture. Please ping me when you've addressed these. Overall, an impressively researched and written piece. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carabinieri

edit

Hi, Thanks for this article. I haven't finished reading it yet. So far, I just have a few comments:

  • "growing concern about South Asian migration to Britain" That sounds like a euphemism to me. Wouldn't "wave of racism directed at South Asian immigrants" or something along those lines be more accurate?
  • Difficult one. I do see your point. However, I don't really want to get into the territory of claiming that all concern about immigration is intrinsically racist (which such a change perhaps does); partly because such a view is rather controversial and partly because I think it will readily open up this article to accusations of (left-wing) bias, which I want to avoid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an organ of National Socialist [i.e. Nazi] opinion in Britain". Is the explanation in brackets really necessary?
  • I can imagine that there might be readers not familiar with "National Socialism" as a term. You probably have to have a certain level of historical awareness to know that "Nazism" was an acronym for "National Socialism" and I suspect most people on the planet to not have it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although contesting six times as many seats as in 1970, its average vote share was 3.2%, slightly less than in 1970" The "although" would appear to indicate a contradiction, but I don't see it. It makes sense that contesting more seats would lead to a lower average vote share, since the party would then also be running in a number of districts where it had fewer supporters.
  • "In the 1979 general election, the NF contested the largest number of seats of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918" What does "insurgent" mean here?
  • Its a reference to a party with no parliamentary representatives but which is challenging the existing status quo. I'm very happy to consider alternative terms here, but not quite sure what might be a better option. "Minor", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the Wilkinson quote at the start of the "Ideology" section. It says that the NF was the only other case, but it's not immediately clear what the first case is. Is it the MSI? And is this really true? I mean the French Front National certainly also had (and still has) a lot of influence. The same is true of the Republicans and the NPD in Germany and several fascist parties in Italy.
  • I think that the French Front National only really got going as an electoral force in the 1980s, after Wilkinson wrote, but I get your point about the problems with the opening of this quote. What I'll do is to trim out the first few sentences of the quotebox; the rest, I think, remains fairly problem free and offers the reader some interesting and pertinent information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really make sense to have a separate section for the NF's electoral performances? The history section already mentions a number of electoral results. I think it might make sense to merge those sections and would like to hear your thoughts on that.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point but I think that there is a case for having two separate sections. Some readers might only be interested in psephology and would skip straight to that section; mixing electoral information in with other forms of history would inconvenience them. I also think that there is a thematic distinction between the "History", which deals largely with the interior workings of the party itself, whereas "Electoral performance" deals more with how they have been received by a far wider sector of the population. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, Carabinieri. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a long time... we've got a lot of commentary but not much in the way of solid support for promotion. I've added it to the urgents list but this will have to be archived soon if some forward progress isn't apparent. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this nom is now almost two months old and has effectively become a peer review rather than FA assessment, so I'm going to archive it. PR is probably where it should've gone first and where I think it should go now for further comment, after which reviewers can be pinged to have another look at a future FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/National_Front_(UK)/archive1&oldid=866209992"