Talk:Local government in Peterborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Good article Local government in Peterborough has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Good article nomination (1)

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: {{{Pass, however the lead section should be condensed and some of the information should be placed lower down in the article.}}}
2. Factually accurate?: {{{Fail. While most of the information seems accurate, there are many statements that need citations including 'Although the powers of the Mayor have diminished over time, the role has retained its importance.'}}}
3. Broad in coverage?: {{{Fail. There are really only three small paragraphs, one of which is no more then a sentence with a list of wards (in the 'Political Control' section). The Armorial Bearings also seems like it is lifted from another cite and should be assigned the proper template. The article confused me when it gave information about the Mayoress and the Deputy Mayor's Consort--this is supposed to be an article about local elections. There is really no discussion of the local politics or candidates outside of the results.}}}
4. Neutral point of view?: {{{Iffy. Sentences like 'The Mayor has a key democratic role to play as well.' should be reviewed.}}}
5. Article stability? {{{Pass.}}}
6. Images?: {{{Fail. Image tag claims fair use, yet rationale claims that it is used with permission.}}}

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — MrPrada 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A response to the above is given here. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination (2)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Reasons for verdict and suggestions:

On the whole, this article has elements approaching GA standard. However, I've noted a few things that I'd like fixed before GA status is awarded. I do think this article does need some work and may be being generous to place this on hold:

  • Section 1b - The lead section does not adequately summarize the article; it has gone too far since the last GA review. Please see WP:LEAD for more information on how a lead section should be done. As noted in 3b, it really isn't relevant to the fact this is an article on the elections and not the council itself. Y Done
  • Section 2a - The statement "decisions that only full council can make..." is not referenced; it's a pretty important part of the article that needs a reference. Also, references are too lightly thrown on the article. Ideally, a reference should be present for every statement made, rather than one to apply for a whole paragraph, although, from looking at the reference, most do apply to all the information in each paragraph
  • Section 3a - I'm not sure this article contains all that it could; what were local reactions to the elections? Were they considered to be expected, or was it a shock? I think the article could be fleshed out a bit with more information. Y Done
  • Section 3b - What does the Armorial bearings have anything to do with the Peterborough local elections? It may be relevant to Peterborough council, but not to the elections. As mentioned in 1b, the lead section is simply not focussed on the article itself. Y Done

This article does need some serious work to hit GA status. However, I believe 7 days should be enough to address this. As with all "On hold" GANs, you have 7 days to rectify the issues I've noted above, or the article will be failed. Once you feel you have addressed the issues, please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As the issues above have not been addressed, this article has been failed. If you disagree with this decision, you may seek a review. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination (3)

I am sorry that this article has failed GAN after being reviewed. Issues on which the decision was based are as follows:

1. Well written?:
  1. (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct. Pass
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, and list incorporation. Pass
2. Factually accurate?:
  1. (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout, Fail, although the article has many references for its size, many important statements are still unreferenced, e.g. "Although the powers of the Mayor have diminished over time, the role has retained its importance"
    (b) provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and Pass
    (c) contains no original research Pass
3. Broad in coverage?:
  1. (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; Fail, The article should provide a broader historical background and relate more to the public and local sentiment
    (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). fail, example:

Civil parishes do not cover the whole of England and mostly exist in rural areas. They are usually administered by parish councils which have various local responsibilities. Parish councillors, like city councillors, are elected to represent the views of local people. Ailsworth, Bainton, Barnack, Borough Fen, Bretton, Castor, Deeping Gate, Etton, Eye, Glinton, Helpston, Marholm, Maxey, Newborough, Northborough, Orton Longueville, Orton Waterville, Peakirk, St. Martin's Without, Southorpe, Sutton, Thorney, Thornhaugh, Ufford, Upton, Wansford, Wittering, and Wothorpe each have a parish council. The city council also works closely with Werrington neighbourhood association which operates on a similar basis to a parish council.[33] Parish elections are held simultaneously on the ordinary day of election of councillors for the district.

should be shortened and made more relavent

4. Neutral point of view?: fail,it does not represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Please consider rewriting the political control section
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Very weak pass/fail, the article should include more pictures

Many of these issues are minor and can be addressed within a day. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Λua∫Wise (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If these issues are as small as you suggest wouldn't it be better to put the article on hold for a week rather than fail it? It languished in GAN for over a month and it seems there may be no need to put it through that again. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment

Taken to WP:GAR for a reassessment of the above decision. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion based on the agreement that a relisted GAN will be put on hold by the original reviewer to give editors of the page the chance to fix any remaining issues. Geometry guy 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination

As agreed in our GAR discussion, the issues I raised along with Geometry guy's concerns should be addressed, or at least some of them. It is true that I look favorably to making it a GA, albeit some issues must be fixed first. Good luck! The article will be on hold for a maximum of a week. If you have any comments regarding the review, please leave them on my talk page. Λua∫Wise (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that no edits have been made to this article since January 26 (over a week ago). It is strange that even though this article is close to GA standard, no one is willing to make a few changes to ensure it clearly is GA standard. Geometry guy 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please specify precisely what changes you would like to see, bearing in mind my comments at GAR in respect of the original review. I am happy to move the page to Peterborough local government providing this will not cause any issues with broadness of coverage. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Just move the article, and it will pass GA.Cheers. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, that I have passed the article for GA (rather reluctantly), I would advice those who seek improving it to look at previous GA reviews and fix some points that have not been addressed yet. Cheers! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milestones

GGuy indicated this was not listed, Auawise, said it was on hold, and articlehistory returns an error because neither entry is correct and complete; can you all please correct the articlehistory to whatever the current state is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the correct article history in the template at the top of the page. The confusion arose because GAR recommended that the article be renominated and put on hold, which has now happened. However, the formal outcome of the GAR is "not listed", so I've restored that. When the GAN review is complete (but not before!) it can be recorded as a new article history action. Geometry guy 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

copied from User talk:MRSC Where is the consensus/ discussion for moving this article? It passed GAN under this title. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC) end copied from User talk:MRSC

I was bold and changed the name to match the other UK local government articles such as Local government in London, Local government in England etc. MRSC • Talk 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)