Talk:Welsh devolution/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am picking up this review because it is one of the top priority unreviewed articles. Unfortunately, I do not think it is close to meeting the GA criteria.

First of all, the article is severely unbalanced with around a third of the non-lead word count devoted to proposed areas of devolution and constitutional proposals, while the current areas of devolution are just a brief list with no explanation of how these policy areas are affected by actual devolution. The article should focus on how devolution has actually affected Wales to date, not on future proposals or hypotheticals, which would better belong in a separate article. For examples of high quality sources that could be cited, see [1][2][3][4]

The "Assessment of devolution" summary is mostly composed of quotes from political leaders. This seems to duplicate the "Political party position on devolution" section. Instead, the evaluation section should focus on the actual impact of devolution according to reliable sources. See the articles cited above for how devolution enabled socialist/social democracy policies in Wales.

Article reference section needs substantial cleanup with some references close to being bare urls.

Overall, the article would need substantial improvement to meet the GA criteria, which cannot be expected to occur within the timeframe of a GA review. I have not checked for OR, copyvio, or plagiarism and consider it to fail 3a and 3b as well as 2a. (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.