Talk:Osmotherly Rules/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
An interesting little article on a subject of which I'd never heard, despite a moderately high level of interest in Westminster-style parliamentary systems. I'm placing it on hold pending some of my concerns being addressed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In light of the lack of progress in the week since I completed this review, I am failing this article. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 10:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it well-written?

A few issues:

• I don't believe that the current lead summarizes the article's contents. It doesn't appear to include any material from the "History" section, and includes very little from the "Contents" section. For an article of this size, the lead should obviously be brief, but I think there's still room for expansion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• "...it has "no formal Parliamentary standing or approval, nor does it claim to have."" The "it" appears to refer to the Osmotherly Rules; shouldn't it therefore be plural? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd suggest naming the subject in the first sentence of "History", rather than jumping straight to using pronouns. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• "...in which the ministers..." Which ministers? Absent any clarification, the definite article suggests that it was all ministers; if that's the case, would it be clearer to say "the cabinet"? If it wasn't all ministers, I'd suggest omitting the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• "An early edition of the Rules was caught up in the Westland affair, a political scandal in which the ministers were worried that officials being questioned by committees about individual conduct could be harmful; they were criticised as "unduly restrictive"." This sentence is somewhat unwieldy, and some of the wording is unclear (e.g. "caught up in", what "they" refers to, etc.). I'd suggest splitting it up into something like "An early edition of the rules was invoked during the Westland affair. In that scandal, some ministers were worried that it could be harmful for committees to question officials directly about individual conduct. X criticized the rules for being "unduly restrictive", in that..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• "The rules state that civil servants ("officials") are not directly accountable to Parliament; rather, Secretaries of State, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State and Parliamentary Private Secretaries (as the elected/appointed agents of the Crown) are accountable to Parliament, and their civil servants – essentially carrying out actions under ministerial powers and authority – are merely responsible to them, and thus cannot be summoned by Select Committees, as they are protected by the same rule that prevents Members of Parliament being summoned." This sentence should be broken up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• "However, in general, if there is a dispute about the attendance of an official, the relevant minister should attend instead as a matter of courtesy." This is not clear. First, why does it say "However"? The notion that it should be the minister, rather than the civil servant, who attends a Select Committee, seems to be entirely consistent with the previous sentence. Second, who is extending what courtesy to whom? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• There is inconsistency as to whether "the Rules" is capitalized. Either way is fine, but it should be consistent. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

Sources appear to be reliable, and all potentially contentious information is cited. However, I'm concerned by the relative paucity of secondary sources. WP:OR and WP:RS (and, to a lesser extent, WP:V) make clear that Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on secondary sources, while this one appears to rely primarily on primary sources. Are there no secondary sources which could be used to support many of the same facts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?

I have some concerns here:

• As I alluded to above, I find some of the history a little sparse. The only time the article mentions them being invoked was during the Westland affair, and there is very little detail provided on the role they played. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• As well, we see that the current edition dates from 2005 and that the first edition dates from 1980, but we are told nothing about what happened between then (whether there were other editions, how and why the rules have changed from edition to edition, etc.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Evaluation of the rules is briefly mentioned ("unduly restrictive", "modest", etc.) but there is little or no elaboration on who is doing the criticizing and what their reasons are. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the "Content" section mentions a lot of things that are covered by the rules without actually mentioning what the rules say about those things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd be curious to know if there's any material on the influence the rules have had in other jurisdictions (and/or, since they're non-binding, the rules they've had in their own jurisdiction) and/or what inspired them (were other jurisdictions emulated in any way when the rules were first drafted?). It would be helpful to have something in the article that explained the importance of the rules in context. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it neutral?

Pass; no problems here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it stable?

Pass; no edits since May 23rd, and all edits except one disambiguation link repair have been by a single editor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Pass, I suppose. It doesn't have any images, which I never like to see, but I really can't think of what images I would put in there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Broad and general response

Points taken on board; with most of them, however, there is simply little information available. There are few sources, beyond the Commons research note (such notes are usually comprehensive, and I guess that this one is too).

On a point of grammar, "Osmotherly Rules" = a single document, which (I think) is correctly phrased as "it". ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can live with them being treated as a singular (the collective singular), though it's not my first choice, but if you're going to do that you need to be consistent throughout the article. Right now, there are numerous places where it's treated as a plural noun. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)