Talk:Mike Gapes
![]() | Mike Gapes has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 30, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Mike Gapes received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
![]() | A fact from Mike Gapes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 January 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gapes (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Gapes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @AFreshStart: there are some comments below that should be addressed before we move on with the last part of the GA review. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: Thank you for your comments! I have trimmed and summarised the political views section, so hopefully, it doesn't read as disjointed anymore. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- That section looks a lot better, thanks for making those changes. More comments coming shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @AFreshStart: just a couple more changes to make (see Prose and Sources), then I'll do my own run-through for the nitpicky stuff, and then we'll be just about there! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- That section looks a lot better, thanks for making those changes. More comments coming shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: Thank you for your comments! I have trimmed and summarised the political views section, so hopefully, it doesn't read as disjointed anymore. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Why was his change of party removed from the lead, if his party membership is in the lede then all of them should be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it was, his change of party is still in the lead as of the latest revision to the article (and the previous dozen I checked). Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- [[1]] looks like it removes it. Ahh its mentioned twice in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@AFreshStart: let me know when you have finished making edits and I will do the final review for pass/fail GA standard. We're close to done I'd say! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: Thank you for being so patient with me! I think I have finished my edits now 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- All done! This article passes GA standard. Congratulations to you and to everyone else who worked on it. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
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. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
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). |
See above |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
See above |
![]() |
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. |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![British MP Michael John Gapes. Baileys not included.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Official_portrait_of_Mike_Gapes_crop_2.jpg/121px-Official_portrait_of_Mike_Gapes_crop_2.jpg)
- ...
that British MP Mike Gapes (pictured) became a source of left-wing mockery after a 2017 anti-Brexit speech he gave explaining how Baileys was made went viral?Source: “I’ve been through a divorce. I know what divorces are like”: Mike Gapes on the pain of leaving Labour - ALT1 ... that a pro-Brexit explanation of how Baileys is made given by British MP Mike Gapes (pictured) was described as being "infinitely memeable" and giving him a "bizarre online infamy"? Source: “I’ve been through a divorce. I know what divorces are like”: Mike Gapes on the pain of leaving Labour
Improved to Good Article status by AFreshStart (talk). Self-nominated at 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC).
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi AFreshStart. I don't see that the article states that he "became a source of left-wing mockery" because of the Baileys speech, nor that it "went viral". Could you either tweak the article - assuming the sources support this - or tweak the hook? (Eg 'that British MP Mike Gapes' (pictured) pro-Brexit explanation of how Baileys is made was described as being "infinitely memeable" and giving him "bizarre online infamy"' or similar.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- The hook is true, but you're right; it isn't fully supported by the source. I'd definitely support your tweaked hook wording as an alternative, thank you! 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I have tweaked it a bit and listed it as ALT1, and tweaked the article to explicitly match it. I believe that having become so involved in producing the hook I now need to step back and allow another editor to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: please remember that hooks must be accurate, neutral, and not unduly focused on negative aspects of living people. DYK is not the place to mock, tease, or shame living people, even if reliable sources have done so. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check ALT1 and recent article changes. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I see no problem with ALT1 (interesting, cited, and neutral), and the article improvements since Dec. 1 check out. Good to go with ALT1! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Was the DYK accurate?
[edit]I suppose it's too late now that it's already up, but based on everything about Gapes' feelings towards Brexit in general, helping form a political party with basically the sole goal of overturning Brexit, what he said in the Bailey's speech being that Brexit would hinder that unity needed to create Bailey's, and even how it was reported on at the time, wasn't it a very anti-Brexit speech rather than pro-Brexit as mentioned in the DYK? Kensai97 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- DYK? Also we do not say it was pro-Brexit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Kensai97: The DYK was initially inaccurate. It was previously mentioned as pro-Brexit in the DYK on the front page. Entirely my fault as I wrote that in the hook (see above) – pure typo on my part and I can only apologise. I think I meant to write 'pro-EU' or 'anti-Brexit' and came up with... the exact opposite of what I meant. I did realise as soon as I saw my notification for the DYK that it was inaccurate (I somehow missed it throughout the rest of the process!) but by then the damage had been done. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class London-related articles
- Low-importance London-related articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Old requests for peer review
- Articles edited by connected contributors
- Wikipedia Did you know articles