Talk:Controversies regarding COVID-19 contracts in the United Kingdom
 | Controversies regarding COVID-19 contracts in the United Kingdom was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
What is this article about?
editIn particular the "Companies" and "Individuals" sections.
It seems the former is an WP:OR cherry-picked list of companies whose suitability has been criticised in some way and for some reason, by someone, anyone. It certainly is neither a full list of all companies that have been awarded Covid-19-related contracts, or even an RS-verifiable list of companies that have been awarded contracts controversially.
As for the later, it seems to be another WP:OR selection, seemingly selected because gossip, hearsay or innuendo links them in some way to the government or the establishment.
I propose deleting these two sections, and going back to Wikipedia basics, and trying to write an encyclopaedic article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DeFacto: Sorry for the late reply. I admit that the companies listed were not picked for any particular reason, and perhaps I should have been more specific in adding them to the article. I've removed the sections (a lot of it was repetition anyway) and removed some of the companies and individuals, but have kept the ones who have been criticised by numerous reliable sources – even if some of the links may appear like gossip or innuendo, they have been reported by a number of RS, so I think they should be included. And I would appreciate any help you could give me to make this article more encyclopaedic.
--Bangalamania (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Controversies regarding COVID-19 contracts in the United Kingdom
editI check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Controversies regarding COVID-19 contracts in the United Kingdom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "leave":
- From Jonathan Van-Tam: Turner, Lauren (13 January 2022). "Jonathan Van-Tam to leave role as deputy chief medical officer". BBC News.
- From Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone: "Conservative peer Michelle Mone to take leave of absence from Lords". BBC News. 6 December 2022. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
- From Rishi Sunak: "EU vote: Where the cabinet and other MPs stand". BBC News. 22 June 2016. Archived from the original on 3 October 2017. Retrieved 1 October 2019.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)