Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nick Griffin/1

Nick Griffin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: List as GA per improvements made during this reassessment and consensus below. Geometry guy 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This article on a very controversial UK politician was failed earlier today mainly because the reviewer felt that it was not written in a sufficiently neutral manner. A lack of stability was also mentioned, but the only "instability" evident to me was some edits in response to the charge of insufficient lack of neutrality.

I feel that this article does indeed meet the GA criteria, but because of its controversial nature, and my disagreement with the original reviewer over its neutrality, I feel that a community review is the best way forward, with hopefully a few more eyes looking at the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I quickly read the article and saw no glaring POV issues. Although there are signs of earlier edit-warring the article has been stable for the last week. I'll give it a closer reading later this week. Majoreditor (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• List as a Good Article. The article has rough edges so I cannot give it a full-throated endorsement. The quality of prose is uneven. For example, there are distracting parenthetical comments and far too many body quotes, particularly in the "Criminal charges" section. There are other minor shortcomings such as the image of David Irving; it would benefit from a more descriptive caption. However, the article is reasonably balanced, broad in its scope and well-referenced. It suffers from periodic vandalism but meets GA standards for stability. Majoreditor (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The reviewer requests citations in lead and citations for each sentence in a controversial article. I do a lot of editing on controversial articles and think it is a good way to go, but we must give some discretion to writers. To require it goes beyond the GA criteria, in my opinion.

The reviewer also objects to the article changing because it is unstable for edit warring. There isn't a normal edit war. Sometimes content changes back and forth over the course of a week or longer without heading towards a consensus, a "slow motion" edit war.

Question: is there a "slow motion" edit war? Can the reviewer or anyone else point it out?

Not really. If you examine the talk page and its archives you'll see arguments about the placement of various lines of text, which led to a short edit war over the course of a day or two. This was resolved by mutual agreement, when I copied the article to my sandbox for a few days to continue work. The editors involved in that war, of which I was one, have now resolved these differences. The talk page is a good indicator of collaboration - see the recent posts on it. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see one either. The article is stable. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have examined the article I agree that it generally meets the GA criteria. I found a couple of problems. The section titled "Criminal charges" seems titled in a POV way. The title suggests Griffin is currently charged with crimes, or that the crimes are more serious than what the subject was charged or convicted with, or that there is a long criminal history. I suggest being more specific.

Well, they were criminal charges, that much is indisputable, and he is a convicted criminal, also indisputable. Nobody involved with the article has ever objected to these headings. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The title is factually correct, but it is the suggestion or insinuation that is the problem. More exactness would remedy it. And it is natural that reviewers here sometimes bring up new issues-- the GA criteria are quite broad and GAR offers a fresh, outside perspective from multiple experienced reviewers. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd need someone to make a suggestion - being more 'exact' would doubtless lead some people to believe that we were trying to 'paint' the article a particular way. For instance, 'views' is just that - his views. Public debates is the same - but were both those to be more exact, can you imagine how unpopular that might be? I think that 'criminal charges' is a good compromise, and is backed up by the sources. Parrot of Doom 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "Criminal charges over writings and comments". This makes it clear and removes the implications I listed above. These other sections are a different case because they are not negative in the general. No dislikes someone because they have 'views' per se. Very different for 'criminal charges'. I understand you don't want to stir up controversy amongst editors by being more specific, and generally this is a good idea, but not in this case. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd have to disagree with such a change in heading. I think its best to keep things simple. I don't feel particularly strongly about it though. Others may have cause to comment though. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot about what Griffin believes, or at least his controversial beliefs, but there is no discussion of what policies Griffin intends to pursue or campaigned for in his most recent election. What does he specifically want to do? I imagine this is the same as BNP policy, but we need to talk about it some in the article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Big can of worms there. We can only really stick to the BNP manifesto, and to be honest (I edit lots of other articles) I haven't really given that much thought. I think its well worth consideration though if anyone wanted to take it to FAC. My involvement with this was to produce the best article we could on a controversial politician. If we can do that, it'll stand Wikipedia in good stead. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a main aspect of the subject. There should be some coverage of it in the article. I think too there are other sources available. Surely Griffin's done some campaign speeches or interviews where he says something about his plans. If not the BNP policies would do.

Its a good point and well taken. I've looked at other politician's articles and noticed this section, so I'll work on this when I return from work next week. Parrot of Doom 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start. Its taking time though - publication of Griffin's views in the mainstream press is understandably difficult to come by. The BNP website is also quite slow. I know for certain he's against the wars in the ME, and I recall something about calling Tony Blair a war criminal, but its difficult to find this stuff. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making some progress. I would think a campaign speech or victory speech would have some information and be available. I had no problem getting through to the BNP website, you might try again. The policies that the BNP would implement in various areas are rather clearly detailed. If nothing more specific about Griffin's planned policies can be found, a summary of these would work. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added details of his speech made at that pub in Manchester, upon his election as an MEP. I can't find his election speech for the BNP, it doesn't appear to be readily available (not surprising really since nobody reported on the BNP much back then). I've also added a basic outline of BNP policies, sourced from their website.

I think a very valuable source of information for this article will be his appearance on BBC Question Time later this month. Parrot of Doom 08:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've added deals solves the breadth issue. I do want to go through the additions for factual accuracy and potential omissions relevant to NPOV. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to omit things like this when you are concentrating of other aspects of the subject. And, of course, missing a main aspect is not to say the article is "bad" in any way-- there's lots of good work here. It is just short of the Good Article standard. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The new segment on policies looks good, and it seems to me that this GAR is near closable as "list". I spotted one minor thing as I was reading: the juxtaposition "The BNP has stated that it does not deny the Holocaust, and that "Dredging up quotes from 10, 15, 20 years ago is really pathetic and, in a sense, rather fascist."[84] However the BNP maintains ties with Roberto Fiore, and fascist groups across Europe.[85][86]" appears to be editorial analysis (i.e., the comparison is not in the sources) and the last sentence might be better placed somewhere in the second paragraph, which discusses links with right wing groups. (Also care is needed when using labels in unqualified prose.) Geometry guy 13:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Good idea, that makes sense with the new material. I was trying to balance things out with the original statement, but its probably best left to the reader to make their own judgement. Moved.Parrot of Doom 17:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate a couple of days to look over the new material. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• List as a Good Article. The breadth concern over policies is more than met; my concern with the "Criminal charges" section title I think is valid but not sufficient in itself to block promotion. While the "Polices and views" section seems to make Griffin out to be a muddle-headed, bigoted, reactionary buffoon, the author has let the facts speak for themselves. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• List. Now passes criteria fro NPOV and broadness imo.YobMod 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)