Talk:David Cameron/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this within a couple of days. JAGUAR 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

"In 2013, Cameron promised an 'In/Out' referendum on the UK's membership of the EU before the end of 2017, after a period of renegotiation, if the Conservatives were to gain a majority in the 2015 general election; the referendum was legislated following their 2015 election victory" - this is outdated, needs to mention that the EU referendum is being held in June 2016
The third paragraph of the Family section should be merged with the second paragraph, as it's uncomfortable having three paragraphs beginning with "Cameron"
"at Heatherdown School in Winkfield (near Ascot) in Berkshire" - unnecessary to have this in brackets, I'd recommend removing it
"which counts Prince Andrew and Prince Edward among its old boys" - what does this mean?
"At the age of thirteen, he went on to Eton College in Berkshire" - delink Berkshire, already linked
I recommend merging the fourth and fifth paragraphs in the education section together, to improve prose flow
"Cameron was later told by one of his professors that it was 'definitely an attempt'" - should be double quotation marks (unless there's a reason why they're single?)
"Cameron's period in the Bullingdon Club was examined in a Channel 4 docu-drama, When Boris Met Dave." - needs a citation
"someone leaked to the Press that the Labour Party had called for a meeting" - no capital needed
"Cameron left Carlton to run for Parliament in 1997, returning to his job after his defeat." - needs a citation
The latter half of the Carlton, 1994–2001 section is unsourced
"In his first address outside 10 Downing Street, he announced his intention to form a coalition government, the first since the Second World War, with the Liberal Democrats." - this too has no citation, but can easily be sourced
"Earlier in his term he had managed to secure a huge majority for UK participation in UN-backed military action in Libya However, Cameron" - full stop needed
"As promised in the election manifesto, he set a date for a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union, and announced that he would be campaigning for Britain to remain within a "reformed EU"" - this needs updating and merged into the previous paragraph
"She resigned however in August 2014 over the government's handling of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict." - needs a citation
"In light of this Cameron said" - comma needed
"In late 2009, the Tory lead decreased and by January 2010 some polls were predicting a hung parliament, which was the eventual result" - replace with Conservative
No dead links. Very impressive for an article this size!
No dab links

This article isn't in bad shape. It's certainly comprehensive, well written and neglects no major facts. The GA criteria required every paragraph and claim to have at least one citation, so you'll notice a lot of things I've picked out that needs citations (which most can easily be found). The rest are minor nitpickings and shouldn't be too hard to address. Once all of the above are out of the way then this can pass! JAGUAR 21:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is an appropriate place to comment. With respect, as a recent fairly active contributor to the article and similar BLPs rather than someone involved in peer review processes, it's IMHO a long way from being comprehensive, has due weight issues and is poorly structured. Specific major issues I think need addressing in addition to the missing citations and corrections you've flagged (some of which I've now fixed -- thanks for highlighting) include:

Structure: the "political commentary" section is a long, uneven and randomly-ordered mix of major and very minor political issues of his premiership (some of them covered elsewhere in the article), skeletons in his closet from the distant past and foreign policy positions. It probably needs a total rethink as well as a prune. Splitting into "Foreign policy", "Domestic policy" and "background" might be one way of doing it.
Due weight/Completeness: major issues of his premiership including an EU referendum campaign he is personally closely identified with and "austerity" get less attention in the "Political Commentary" section than some long-forgotten comments he made about education in 2010, his willingness to meet the Indian premier and some unremarkable comments he made about the Falklands. There's a fair bit of existing content that should probably be farmed out to "Political positions of David Cameron" or "Premiership of David Cameron" articles, but at least as much that needs to be written from scratch.
Structure/Due weight His shadow cabinet reshuffles prior to becoming PM get a paragraph. His more consequential actual Cabinet reshuffles are not. (I'd err on the side of removing the early Cabinet stuff, but others might see it differently)
POV the "Reaction to Cameron as leader" subsection consists purely of negative reactions to his election which is not at all reflective of public opinion at the time
Structure/POV "Shortlists for Parliamentary candidates" is a subsection of something completely unrelated, begins with "similarly" and is again pure undiluted criticism of an initiative it doesn't even explain
Inappropriate sourcing. I've removed entirely superfluous attributions to Russia Today and freebie tabloid Metro, but suspect there are other sources as questionable

The article has changed a huge amount since it was given the originally given good article status in 2007 when Cameron didn't have any Prime Ministerial record to [inadequately] summarise (and so the excellent and in some cases even excessively-detailed sections on his early career constituted the bulk of the article). I think it still needs a lot of pruning and a lot of new content to adequately summarise his career as of nine years later. Dtellett (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've also pointed out some issues with the referencing here. There are probably more. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Cause for concern[edit]

I'm sorry to be a party pooper but I'm afraid that I do feel the need to express some strong concerns about the state of this article, and would recommend that it not be awarded GA status at this time. A brief comparison between the David Cameron article and pre-existing GA-rated political biographies (whether those of British politicians like Ken Livingstone or those of big international figures like Nelson Mandela) reflects a very evident gulf in quality. This article has not made use of the fully-researched, published biographies of Cameron nor of any academic studies of his administration but rather has been assembled through the ad hoc use of any freely available source that comes to hand; little or no attempt has therefore been made to utilise the most important and useful sources currently available. Moreover, the structure of the article isn't up-to-scratch; to cite just one example, we have many sections that contain merely a sentence rather than a full paragraph. Again, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but GA rating is a form of quality control and I do believe that it should be upheld across the board. This article is nowhere near the quality that we should expect from a Good Article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Patient Zero, are you still up for addressing the concerns listed? I know it's a lot to take in, so I'll be happy to leave it on hold or close it if you need more time. A subject like this requires a list of comprehensive sources as well as things like biographies and academic studies. JAGUAR 18:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jaguar - just received your message. I'm currently very busy, and midway through my GCSEs, so I will be unavailable to address these concerns. I apologise for the inconvenience and give you permission to fail the review if nobody else wishes to act on my behalf. Regards --PatientZero ^talk 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I'm sorry to do this as an inconvenient time. Good luck with your GCSEs, I remember them like they were yesterday! If you plan on renominating I'll be more than happy to do this again.

JAGUAR 13:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jaguar for the good luck wishes. 5 down so far! --PatientZero ^talk 15:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, I see you reverted my archiving of this failed GA Review. Could you or someone else please remove it from this talk page, as it's obtrusive and lengthy and in the way of current talk-page activity. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was that it wasn't archived at all; rather the text had simply been deleted from the GAN page. That is not the way in which GANs should be archived. I'll look into removing it from this talk page, however, although it should archive itself from the talk page without too much trouble. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]