Talk:Ruth Kelly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
 |
Ruth Kelly is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.
Nomination date: 30 November 2006 |
 |
Ruth Kelly is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Date of review: 18 October 2006 |
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] The voice - again
Can anyone/someone pls explain to me how a physical attribute which, it has been suggested, could give a political advantage to RK, is not encyclopaedic? Frelke 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Nomination
The following problems have compelled me to fail this article in its current state:
- Sections - The way this article is organized needs to be addressed. Why do individual points (Fathers for Justice attacks, Gay equality issues, etc.) have their own major headings?
- Point of View - Several sections feel like they violate WP:NPOV. One should especially note the GA criterion all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted.
- Original Research & Sources - This article appears to synthesize new information ( She did so only after accepting the appointment of Tony Blair's adviser Andrew Adonis as a Minister within her Department, an appointment she did not welcome.). Some of the article makes assessments of situations (Kelly's time as Secretary of State has not been easy. It seems as if Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools will pick up the mantle of trust schools.).
- Red links - I count at least eight within the article body.
- Citations - Several cite tags exist, and after reading the article I think there is a lot more that either needs citations or needs to be deleted entirely (WP:OR). (This was reported as the government backtracking on many key issues although they stressed that it was not a climbdown.)
- Stability - Article appears to have several defenders who challenge every change made... not always a bad thing, but doesn't really give the article the appearance of a clear consensus / stable article, especially when coupled with original research issues.
- Images - while not an automatic disqualifier, the article could use a few key pictures.
- It is well written.
- a (prose):
b (structure): 
c (MoS): d (jargon):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
- a (tagged and captioned):
It should be noted that I am not a British subject and have no prior knowledge of the subject. I also encourage archiving the talk page. /Blaxthos 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reformat of page
I have addressed some of the criticims above in the rejection of this page from good article status.
- Headings have been redone so that the "gay equality issues" and "Fathers 4 Justice" elements are no longer under major headings. Also, the Cabinet section is replaced by two seperate ones for her two positions at Education and then Communities so these can be expanded.
- A new photo (with a free license) has been added to replace old Crown Copyright one
- References have been sorted and new ones added (including for her grandfather's IRA connection which it seems had proved controversial).
- Talk page has been archived
Hopefully everyone agrees the page is improved. Maybe we can expand on detail about her work as Communities Secretary. WJBscribe 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Education White Paper
A disproportionate part of the article is taken up with a discussion of the Trust Schools legislation. Do others feel this is necessary or maybe should have a sub-page? I does look strange given the rest of her Cabinet career is not covered in such detail. WJBscribe 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are totally correct. I wrote most of it and at the time it was very current and newsworthy but in hindsight a seperate article would be better. I need to go and read up on the naming conventions for articles such as those. I'm not that familiar with the area. But if you want to push on in the meantime feel free. Well done on the rest of it. I think there is also a bit of work to be done to the quality of English used in the remainder of the SoSfES section. Frelke 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree on the quality point (hasn't yet really had by attention though). What do you think about using Education and Inspections Act 2006 as this already referenced at: List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present? It seems to work OK... WJBscribe 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsupported claims
The only unreferenced part of the article now seems to be: She supported new technologies in government[citation needed] . I'm not sure I really know what this means and I can't find a source for it. I suggest it stays off the main page until a source for it is found... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WJBscribe (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 November 2006.
The following sentence in the article section Religion has a lot of claims that are just opinions or OR but are not to be found in source #5 cited for this sentence. The terms „religion in schools“ and „objectively“ don't even appear in the source. Also, the cited scientists voiced no concern about abortion or even embryonic stem cell research, but only about stem cell research.
- The effect of her religious viewpoint on her ability to objectively address controversial questions has been of concern to some scientists who have alleged that her religious views could be the cause of conflict over government policy issues such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and religion in schools.
I will correct this according to the cited source. --Túrelio 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As of 01:56, 30 November 2006 WJBscribe inserted the words „She was not required to do so“ refering to Mrs. Kelly in the article section about the Fathers for Justice attacks.[1] As the reference #14 cited for this paragraph, doesn’t contain such a statement, this is a falsified account of the reference or at least a violation of NOR. Actually the cited reference clearly states: „but he (the attacker) changed his plea to guilty at the hearing“. So if the attacker changed his plea only at the hearing, she (the victim) „was due to give evidence“ and had to go to the court.(italics by me) Honestly, this smells like a sort of apology for the second attacker in a Blaming the victim manner.
WJBscribe, where did you take this from and what are you suggesting? --Túrelio 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologise my wording is unclear and I will sort it. I had meant that she ultimately did not need to give evidence in court once she got there as he had chnaged his plee to guilty. Not that she had not needed to go to the court in the first place. Though I agree my phrasing is slightly ambiguous, I think you jump the point a little in suggesting I was blaming her for the second attack. I remind you of the need to assume good faith on the part of other editors...
PS. As to my 'only unreferenced part of the article comment, I meant only that it was the only remaining {fact} tag, not that other areas were not still NPOV or needed references cited. WJBscribe 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see User:Catchpole has removed the sentence alltogether as not relevant. I think they're probably right- it probably is an unnecessary detail... WJBscribe 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Section Ruth Kelly#Secretary of State for Education and Skills contains mostly unsourced statements:
- (2nd paragraph, last sentence) ... have hurt this reputation, with many considering that she is solely interested in the problems and issues of working parents.
The Guardian article (ref #8) doesn’t say anything of this.
- (3rd paragraph) As a mother of four she has refused to work the long hours normally associated with her position or take a red box in the evening, which consequently has caused problems with the speed at which she has made decisions or engaged with issues within her own Department.
Especially the second part of that sentence is a strong accusation. This is not acceptable without at least one credible/reliable source.
- (4th paragraph) She controversially rejected the proposals of the Tomlinson report on education reform for the 14–19 age group.
--Túrelio 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree. It is by far the worst section. I was planning to have a look at it before anyone assesses the page for GA status. But to be honest whenever I read it I feel a headache coming on! It truly is messy. Shall probably have a go at it soon but if someone else wants to give rewriting it a go, so much the better! WJBscribe 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The link inserted as ref #10 (<ref>{{cite web | date = [[2004-03-29]] | title = Work-life balance | url = http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Bulletins/PressReview/fullpressreview.htm?bulletindate=29-Mar-2004 | format = HTML | publisher = [[ePolitix.com]] | accessdate = 2006-12-02}}</ref>) by Frelke is not a source for the strong accusation in the second half of the above mentioned sentence in the 3rd paragraph. (ePolitix.com-citation removed to avoid possible copyright violation). --Túrelio 14:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally I found the original article (behind ref #10) in The Independent from March 29, 2004 [2] and at least I didn't find a word about caused problems with the speed at which she has made decisions or engaged with issues within her own Department. So, that statement is still unsourced and, as I see, has already been removed by Catchpole. --Túrelio 14:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
While re-reading the above mentioned article in The Independent (currently ref #10), I discovered that it covers Kelly as Financial Secretary to the Treasury but not as Secretary of State for Education and Skills, whereas the remaining sentence As a mother of four she ... relates to the latter position. We might discuss here whether that discrepancy is relevant. --Túrelio 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that is a prob. We have no source to confirm whether or not this policy continued once she was made Secretary of State, when the pressure to take home red boxes would have been greatest. Until a source is found to suggest she still does not take home Red boxes, I shall move this sentence to the relevant part of the article... WJBscribe 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The following: "At the Treasury she would start work at quarter past nine, leave at quarter past six, and famously refused to take red boxes home. Even now, she works no more than two or three hours at weekends."[3] suggests this practice did not continue when she moved to the DfES. WJBscribe 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are 3 pre-formated possible references/sources for the "Kelly hours" statement; pick one.
<ref> Rebecca Smithers: [http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1505054,00.html Dawn to dusk care plan for schools], ''[[The Guardian]]'', June 13, 2005</ref> <ref> Melissa Benn: [http://www.cipfa.org//publicfinance/opinion_details.cfm?News_id=24335 Counting the hours], ''Public Finance'', June 24, 2005</ref> <ref> Liz Lightfoot: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/14/nscho14.xml Welcome to the 10-hour school day], ''Telegraph'', June 14, 2005</ref>
--Túrelio 10:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A task for english native-speakers/writers
In section Ruth Kelly#Career as an MP (2nd and 3rd paragraph) the expression „She had responsibility for …” is used repetitively (3 times in succession). Couldn’t this be replaced at least once by “was responsible for” or would this change the meaning? --Túrelio 10:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorted. Now that was much more fun than dealing with the paras highlighted above :). PS. no, that wouldn't have changed the meaning at all. WJBscribe 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Last two unsourced statements
OK, I have tracked down sources for the last elements tagged as unsourced: the Tomlinson report, and her supposed near demotion after the 2005 elections. I have altered the relevant passages to ensure they are completely supported by those sources. I have also changed the POV language from that part of the article that was criticised during the last GA nomination to something more neutral. WJBscribe 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
