Talk:Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrClog (talk · contribs) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I will try to review this page in 7 days. --MrClog (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (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):

   An issue with the lead: please see comment below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Please see comments below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Please see comment below.

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing this on hold until the comments below are addressed so that they can be fixed within 7 days. --MrClog (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• (1b) The current introductory text does not at all mention the contents of the Background section. The article should summarise the most important point(s) of this section as well.
• (2b) Because "nationalist" is a contentious label, In 1984, the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) should be supported with an in-line citation.
• (2b) The council replied that they had no intention of "petitioning an English Queen to change the name of our Irish city" contains a direct quotation and should as such be supported by an in-line reliable source. The current Londonderry Sentinel article used as a reference lists letters by readers, and because those writers are not subject to editorial review, their content is not reliable. A different source should be used. (This is no original research, as I reasonably belief that there'll be a reliable source available somewhere.)
• (2b) Per WP:RSPRIMARY, [l]arge blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. The Case section of the article is seemingly based almost entirely on a primary source (being the judge's ruling).
• (3a) The section Background should contain some information on the nationalist vs unionist sentiments in Londonderry at the moment.

Failed "good article" nomination

It's been around 7 days and no attempts have been made to address the comments. Closing as failed. --MrClog (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)