Talk:British National Party/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I'll field this one if you like! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally good, but there are still grammatical problems throughout the entire article. For instance, in the first paragraph following the introduction, there are issues such as "Members of Tyndall's New National Front, wished to modernise and move away from fascist ideology..." This is just one of many examples that I have identified. A thorough copy edit is required.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede section has multiple problems. I'm not confident that it summarizes the entire article sufficiently, and doesn't offer as clear an introduction to the subject as it should; for instance, it doesn't explicitly state that the BNP are a party based in the U.K., it doesn't mention the party's economic stance, and Nick Griffin is linked to twice. It's certainly not bad, but it's not up to GA quality just yet.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are issues with some of the references, e.g. the date is missing from "Eatwell, p. 66". Otherwise generally good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	In a few areas, an anti-BNP bias appears to seep through.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I've failed this article at this juncture, because it still needs quite a bit of work to reach GA status. But don't be disheartened, because the quality has definitely improved over recent months, and there's an awful lot of great work that has gone into the article. If you want any further advice, feel free to message me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)