Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Led By Donkeys/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2020 [1].

Led By Donkeys

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the tale of how four friends used a ladder, a bucket and wallpaper paste to take on Brexit, and failed. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources

Almost all the article's sources have anti-Brexit editorial line. That affects WP:NPOV

It seems that pro-Brexit sources have largely ignored this anti-Brexit group. Unsurprisingly. On top of that, many of the pro-Brexit sources seem to be marked red on the list of reliable sources on WP:RSP. How does one apply WP:NPOV in circumstance of such bias in the sources?

Tabloids such as Evening Standard, Birmingham Mail, Metro are not RS and should not be used (see WP:RSP)

WP:RSP states that "Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation". My interpretation of this is that when a source like Evening Standard simply reports an event that happened, provides the evidence of said event (say a video of a projection on the White Cliffs of Dover), and no other source is available, then it is ok to use it. Am I wrong? Should I instead delete the content altogether?

For FAC, I just don't see how these sources can qualify as high quality reliable sources as stated below by another reviewer. b uidhe 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use Huffington Post for any controversial or disputed content, since there is no consensus on its reliability. b uidhe 19:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both instances replaced now.

I strongly suggest withdrawing this from FAC and going through GAN instead. b uidhe 19:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having brought 5 far less controversial articles here before, with success, I opted for the painful learning experience of bringing a controversial one here. Would you be willing to work with me on GAN? I specifically want to find out how to cope with sources if one side of the argument seems to largely ignore the topic. I'd be grateful if you could assist me. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help but contemporary politics really isn't my area either, I'm afraid. b uidhe 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Spy-cicle

This article has large sourcing issues meaning it will not meet 1.c (claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources...). This includes the usage of Huffington Post, Metro, Evening Standard, Express and Star, The Star, Devon Live, The Birmingham Mail, etc.
There is also significant portions of the article sourced from primary sources, this being the book written by the subject. Primary sources should generally be kept to a minimum when reliable secondary sources exist
There are also some WP:NPOV issues. E.g. Led By Donkeys' main campaign consists of billboards containing past tweets by pro-Brexit politicians which state the politicians' previous political positions, which have clearly not stood the test of time. because it is written in Wikipedia's voice not from an RS.
There are also issues with spacing and typos the use of curly quotes. Also when referencing a book the page numbers should use en dashes per MOS:DASH.
I would strongly suggest withdrawing this FAC, resourcing this article so that it only uses reliable sources, request a copy edit at the Guild of copy editors and submitting it for GAN. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opppse for the reasons outlined above. Cassianto^Talk 10:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

Besides the reference issues, there are numerous prose issues:

The first paragraph of the lead is pretty long and should probably be split
All four men have a connection with environmental campaign group Greenpeace; Oliver Knowles and Ben Stewart are employees, and James Sadri and Will Rose had previously been involved with the group. - as of when?
Sentences like these They settled on these four: Michael Gove saying, in 2016, "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want"; Liam Fox saying in 2017 "The Free Trade Agreement that we will do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"; David Davis saying in 2016 "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside"; and John Redwood saying in 2016 "Getting out of the EU can be quick" should probably be split up. There are plenty of long run-on sentences like this.
South East of England - if this is a proper noun, it should be linked. If not, it should be lowercase.
I'd try to avoid sentence constructions like For months, who was behind Led By Donkeys was unknown.
There are metric conversions with no US customary or imperial equivalents.

This is just a sample of the issues I found. Normally, I would give this a deeper prose overview, but combined with the over-usage of primary sources and questionable sources, I unfortunately have to oppose this article for promotion. Like the above commenters, I would suggest going through the GAN process first. epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you epicgenius, Cassianto, Spy-cicle, Buidhe for your comments. I will take them all on board, withdraw from FAC and go through GAN at some stage. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.