Talk:Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History section[edit]

This seems to contain relatively little about the constituency and rather a lot about Ukip v Tory prospects for 2015 based partly on a non notable polling company. It seems an irrelevant combination of wp:crystal and wp:coatrack & I intend to radically shorten the section. JRPG (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PinkPanda272 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello N Oneemuss. I have read through the page and it looks well written and does not contain any obvious problems. I will start reviewing today, and hope to have it completed in the next 6-7 days. Please bear in mind that it may take a bit longer, as this is my first review. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi N Oneemuss, here is my review:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    No issues here, spelling and grammar are good throughout, and the relevant MOS sections are followed well. I have fixed a few small punctuation errors myself.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Most sources are reliable and well referenced, the only exception being this one [1] from Lincolnshire Pride Magazine, the author's opinions seem to be fairly biased. The page scores 10.7% on the copyvio detector, nothing notable as the only matches are direct quotes.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I can't see any major content ommisions, summary style used well throughout (bar small problem descibed below).
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    UKIP seems to have far more coverage in the lead section than the Conservatives, even though they have never won the seat. I understand the reasoning (referendum result, high vote shares etc), but I would suggest slimming it down to provide a more balanced view, as the details are already given in a later section. Everything else is portrayed neutrally and without bias.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images are freely licensed and well captioned. A picture of Skegness (if available) would be good as a counterpoint to the one of Boston, and an image of either/both of Matt Warman's predecessors would be good in the

Member of Parliament section.

  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Well written article, references and content are all good. Just a few issues to fix, so I am putting it on hold for a week. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to fix:

  • Change or remove Lincolnshire Pride reference
    •  Done
  • Condense UKIP coverage in main section
    • I've done some condensing. Not sure if it's enough though.
      • Looks good, I have condensed slightly more  Done
  • Add Skegness image if possible
  • Repeat the explanatory note for Buckingham in the lead section
    • I removed the part about Buckingham as part of condensing UKIP coverage Username6892 14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change 'promoted' for 'moved' in relation to Mark Simmonds' shadow ministerial positions, as he was still a Minister of State when he moved to the Health brief
    •  Done
  • Change '...anti-European Union UK Independence Party' to '...Eurosceptic UK Independence Party', makes more sense as that is where the link points to
    •  Done
  • Rephrase "...since legally all unprotected constituencies must have electorate size within 5% of the median electorate for unprotected British constituencies" doesn't read very well.
    • @PinkPanda272: "..must be within 5% of the median electorate size.." Does that read better?
      • Good start, I have condensed it slightly more  Done
  • The sentence about house prices and wages in the Constituency Profile section is quite long and cumbersome, could do with spitting.
    •  Done
  • The graph at the top of the election section states that minor parties that never received more than 5% of the vote are omitted. The Green Party is included, even though they have never met this threshold?
    • minus Removed I'd normally allow parties who run 2 elections in a row to be added if they get 2% in at least one, but the Greens didn't in this constituency. Username6892 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call, looks better now
I think all of the comments have been addressed now. Thank you for the review! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@N Oneemuss and Username6892: Interesting and well-written article, all errors have been promptly fixed, well done. I am now more than happy to promote this as a Good Article. I would also suggest nominating it for DYK to give the article more prominence, there are plenty of interesting facts to use. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by N Oneemuss (talk). Nominated by PinkPanda272 (talk) at 08:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • ☑Y Article is long enough (19355 characters), is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 6 May, nominated 10 May), and article is within policy
  • ☑Y ALT0, ALT1, ALT4 are all short enough, interesting and well cited and within policy. I don't think ALT2 is appropriate (why would we want to highlight possible deprivation), and ALT3 isn't that interesting either in my opinion. Happy for ALT0, ALT1 or ALT4 to be run
  • ☑Y QPQ done
  • Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_and_Skegness_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&oldid=1206387814"