Talk:Federalism in the United Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 10:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This article has had some expansion, but as it stands it does not yet meet some of the GA Criteria. With regards to criteria 1, the WP:LEAD does not serve as a summary of the article, instead making its own points with its own sources. On prose, much of the article is made up of very specific lists; one section is just a list given by one source. The Political Party positions section is mostly a list of wikilinks, which don't even link directly to the topic. On criteria 2, a lot of work needs to be done. Most sources here are primary, linking directly to political party statements or publications by think tanks. The direct citing of legal acts with no interpretative sources is another example of this. Many areas remain unsourced. There is a cn tag in the article, and in some areas entire paragraphs lack sources. (Many sources also lack proper formatting, missing dates or access-dates, and in the case of Wood 1976, most expected bibliographical information.) On criteria 3, the article lacks much overarching coverage. The majority of the article is within the 21st century timeline subsection, but there is no explanation as to why this period is relevant. Basic lists are presented throughout, but there is a lack of coverage of the relative importance and weight of all of these. The Suggested Potential Benefits section is almost empty, and also begs the question of what the source of opposition is, which is not covered. The political party position section is bare as well, despite multiple political parties being mentioned in the timeline. Where the prose is significant, there are issues with focus. For example, in the Historical context section, much information is given about general political development, but this is often not linked back to the topic of federalism. Much of this is likely linked to a lack of secondary sources, which often provide such context. On criteria 4, there is the gap mentioned earlier, it is odd to have a benefits section rather than an impacts section (opposite of WP:CRITICISM). Overall, it is odd that this article only has 16kB of prose, as a topic so prominent with a timeline covering over a hundred years is going to generated have a lot of publications. A quick search finds quite a few, and it is likely many would uncover other aspects of this topic that should be covered under criteria 3 (fiscal federalism in particular seems to be a subtopic with a lot of coverage). Best, CMD (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)