Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British people/1

British people

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about out-of-date information brought up on the talk page have not been addressed. There is uncited text, including the entire "Chile" section, and the demographics section needs to be updated, as it uses sources from 2005 and the 90s. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, immediately, without going too far, in the lede, reference 28 about CUKC is not explained correctly and doesn't address the situation British people in regards to an influx of Caribbeans identifying as Britons. And the infobox regarding Regions with significant populations is onto the right idea, however again, poorly constructed. Perhaps something on the lines of e.g. Canada 603,000 ~ 17,325,860, as the notes are hidden and don't offer a clear explanation of the figures. Cltjames (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has 69kB of readable prose, so is on the large side - would be good to trim to under 50kB prose. Lots of things to look at. Lots of direct quotes that should be de-quoted and written differently (if they need to remain at all) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist 1) The infobox is mainly about the diaspora, while the lead mentions the diaspora only in the last sentence. Languages like Virgin Islands Creole are mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article (against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The infobox starts with the Union Jack. A few lines later we read that there are more than 100 mill. in the USA. Do we really want to give our readers the impression that 100 mill. Americans fly the Union Jack ?

2) Arbitrary selection of pictures of people: There are four photographs of individuals: Rowling (why select her, and not nobel laureate Abdulrazak Gurnah ?), Rhodes (without even mentioning his connections with colonialism and racism), Paddy Mayne and three gold medalists of the 2008 World Orienteering Championships (the most famous British sportspeople ever ?). All of them are White.

3) Is the diaspora really so important for British identity ? About a third of the whole article is about British diaspora, with a long sub-section e.g. for Chile.

4) Why are the British Overseas Territories and Northern Ireland (in the sub-section on Ireland) covered in one section with the diaspora ? Rsk6400 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.