it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline;[3]
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[4] (The daily express was used once,
Wikipedia guidelines state that this source should be regarded with even more caution than other tabloids).
media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions (Although I think the image of Johnson might be too big).
Comments
I think the major flaw with the current article is the weight given to the different sections. A good article does not have to be comprehensive, but it should not be selective in which parts it omits. For a more balances article, a list of suggestions:
Context (under proposal?):
Can you tell more about how specific and many pages the document is?
can you tell anything about how hard/soft a Brexit this would be? How it compares to Canada style and Norway plus? That citizens' (EU and UK) right are mentioned, but were guaranteed before.
Less on Johnson . Was mentioned on the talk page as well.
More on the response from the EU and reasons why Chequers plan was rejected:
The article is relatively short, so even though I'm asking for quite a big rebalancing of the article, it should be doable within a week. I'll put the review on hold for now.
Femke Nijsse (
talk)
10:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm quite happy with the changes so far. I was reading the French version of this article, and noticed some other things are missing from the current article: a quick summary of the events leading up to the Chequers deal, the duration of the negotiations, and maybe reactions from outside the EU (Trump had something to say, but maybe we should just ignore that). I think that the content of the plan is the most important bit to work on. Thanks for your dedication! If you need a couple more days, I'll definitely give them to you.
Femke Nijsse (
talk)
20:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Since I've not heard from you in quite a while, I have decided to fail the nomination. The major concern is point 3a, and 4. In addition to my comments of the 11th of April, I notice that no other UK party than the Tories are featured in the reactions to the Chequers deal paragraph. This gives me a bit of concern about neutrality. I think it is fair to focus more on the Tory reaction than the other parties combined, but I think a single line should balance.
^Compliance with other aspects of the
Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
^Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
^Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a
bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^Either
parenthetical references or
footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
^The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of
featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as
copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
^The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.