Talk:Led By Donkeys/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to begin this review for GA status. Let me have a read. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Main Body

• The Beginning section main body reads quite a lot like a narrative. It may be worth re-wording this in order to fit a more summarising tone.

I have reworded it a bit.

• The impact section says Despite their messages having been seen hundreds of millions of times on social media and some mainstream media exposure, the Led By Donkeys campaigns failed to help stop Brexit. – It might be worth elaborating on the reasons to stop Brexit (for the international readers), and rewording this sentence to fit a more neutral approach?

I have added a new Background section about Brexit. I don't think adding he reasons that Remainers had for stopping Brexit belongs in this article. There are just too many. Key for Led By Donkeys is the hypocricy, which is used widely in this article. I have reworded the Impact section to make it more neutral.

• Another statement in 'Critical reception' goes: People in the marketing world have praised the campaigns.. There are a few broad statements in the article that may need to be reworded to fit the neutrality section of the GA review.

I removed the broad statement. I'm trying to find other such broad statements, but seem to somehow miss them. Maybe I have removed them already in my rewrites already, but if not, maybe you could point them out?

While I don't disagree with the statement, 'The main campaign of holding Brexiteers to account for past promises and exposing their flipflopping views has been ongoing.', the wording doesn't fit the wiki neutrality. It might be worth changing this?

Yes, you are right. I changed it. I hope for the better :) Any more that need tweaking?

Could do with an infobox, albeit a short one?

Good idea. I did a very simple one.

Images

• It would also be nice to see some images. I've had a look and there are some on Flickr (Copyright-free) that can be uploaded under the Flickr license through the Commons Upload Wizard.

I have added two.

References

• The article is generally well referenced, but there are some statements missing references. It would be great if this could be addressed!

I added one for the statement about Trump and Farage. Any other I have missed?

Do you have any for: "Social media followers asked for billboards all over the country, rather than just the South East of England, which voted mostly Remain. The activists deplored the tribalism triggered by Brexit and agreed that going national was needed."

Found one for the request bit. I dropped the other bits.

Overall

This is a great article so far, with comprehensive info and references. If the above can be fixed, it should meet GA criteria. I'd be happy to help make a few of these changes, and then assess against criteria.

Criterion

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):

   Lead will need to be reworked after other issues addressed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Small amount of uncited information

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I've suggested some expansions and material to remove.

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:

   Needs some work but should be able to meet GA criteria I'll put it on hold.

Thanks ever so much for taking the time to review this. I will try my best to improve it as per your guidance. I might ask for some clarification. I'll start with the images. So good that there are more, I couldn't find anymore when I last looked. Thanks ever so much! Edwininlondon (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Just leave a message here if you have any questions. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued

Hi Edwininlondon. Review attached. Enjoy the GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead will need to be reworked after other issues addressed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Small amount of uncited information

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I've suggested some expansions and material to remove.

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:

• Thanks SerAntoniDeMiloni! I enjoyed working on your suggestions and believe we have made the article a lot better. I hope we can work together again in the future. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome Edwininlondon! It was great working with you. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)