Talk:John Leech (politician)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
Contents |
[edit] Edits by Houses of Parliament
The IP 194.60.38.10 has been removing some of the more negative remarks in this page.
inetnum: 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.63.255 netname: HOP descr: Houses of Parliament country: GB admin-c: SJ675-RIPE tech-c: DH849-RIPE mnt-by: UK-HOP-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered status: ASSIGNED PI
A bit like staff members of the offices of United States Senators editing pages? {{subst:unsigned:Thegraham}}
[edit] 2005 Election Campaign controversy
This section looks disproportionately large, and sources are scarce. The South Manchester Reporter ref only partially supports the statement that "it was not just Labour activists that protested against John Leech's campaign on Christie Hospital - over 500 residents signed post cards asking Mr Leech for an explanation of his claims once it became clear that they were not true" - the reference says the petition was handed to Leech by Labour activists. Oldelpaso 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I started the 2005 election section (with thanks to thegraham) as a useful and relevant section on John Leech. It appears to have been turned into something as factual as the letters page in the South Manchester Reporter. Wikipedia is not a partisan rag.--Supernoodles 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I am a Labour supporter (not Blair >_<) I have to agree with you. I live in Mr. Leech´s constituency and am a member of the residents´ association in West Didsbury, as such, I know that he did more in the constituency to help the locals than the previous MP (Keith Bradly) did, and that´s why I voted for him.v80.36.137.15 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Laurellien
I lived in Mr Leech's constituency until about 15 months ago. This section on '2005 Election Campaign' is clearly partisan and in breach of NPOV. It is written in the worst kind of childish and immature style, typical of Keith Bradley's own material on the subject. There is a genuine controversy over what happened during this campaign, but it can be handled in a neutral, objective way and in about a third of the word-count compared to what currently stands. Pharkie 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stategic
Is it really "Stategic Health Authority" or "Strategic"? Google does not give me an accurate answer. --192.45.72.28 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are right - it was a typo. I'm sure it is the Strategic Health Authority. Why not register/sign in? -- Thegraham 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Review of Wiki Entry
In reviewing entry (I'm not a rating person) I have some tips for primary maintainers as I just went though two bio reviews myself.
- All suggestions derived from WP:BIO and it's sub-pages
Have a "Biography" section, with sub sections leading up to his current status
- I think I've done this, but if you think it can be arranged better feel free :). Thegraham 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Switch "Footnote" with "References"Use only 1-3 sentences for introducing who he is- Cite all statements of fact made, especially since he is in political office (see WP:CITE for details)
- Be careful of NPOV statements in article (namely in election section) as this is huge problem, and will not help rating whatsoever
Suggested removal of postcard from article, this is seen as NPOV violation. This might be true that he put spin on problem with hospital, but that can be stated in balanced way. Remember this is bio in an encylipedia, not political blog/forum.
Hope this helps! Hackajar 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your useful advice. I'm working on the changes you suggest and will strikethrough what you've said when I've done it. Thanks. Thegraham 08:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
