 | Plastic Brit has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 22, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Plastic Brit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
GB olympic team does not represent only GB edit
Apart from the fact that the GB team is the team for the United Kingdom, of which GB is only a part, it is also the team for Anguilla, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, and Turks and Caicos Islands. It should be noted in the article that people from these places are not somehow feigning Britishness, but participate for an inadequately named team. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Plastic Brit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
"The term was used to describe a number of amateur wrestlers who had not been born in the UK and had been British citizenship." - please clarify. More soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done that one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
""Then there are cases where there is support but they go because there is a bigger gain in another country. Legally we can't stop it but it doesn't mean we love it."[18]" - I presume this makes sense in the context of the speech, but "support" and "gain" are largely undefined as it's used in the article. I'd suggest paraphrasing more of it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As for the rest... well, it could use a copyedit, frankly. The last section, in particular, seems to present the facts in a slightly random order. Nothing enough to cause it not to pass GA, but it's worth doing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It did have a copyedit from GOCE on 4 February. That being said, I have moved that last paragraph around a bit to try to make it a bit clearer as it is a series of athletes criticising the Plastic Brit term. I have also added some clarity to the quote for context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy enough. Promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Daily Mail cites edit
The fact of the Daily Mail using the term is established in RSes covering the issue - but the Mail's statements about living persons are a huge and obvious WP:BLP issue, and we absolutely should not be running the Mail's attacks on living people. This is precisely the sort of thing the Mail was deprecated for.
Fundamentally - if you're looking for excuses to use The Mail, you don't understand Wikipedia sourcing. And if you're doing it in the face of WP:BLP, you really need to understand that policy - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Notability edit
Is this subject really WP:NOTABLE? The term is not in common usage even in Britain, and has really only been used in shitstirring and borderline racist journalism by the Daily Mail. Ef80 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)