Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, an attempt to co-ordinate articles on Parliamentary constituencies, produce common standards and fill in the gaps. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Good article Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


[edit] Good article nomination (1)

There are significant coverage gaps here. The demographics of the seat need to be discussed - Age distribution, income distribution, ethnic and religious distribution. And need to discuss how this affects the psephology. eg, older people will put focus on aged care, certain ethnic or religious groups may tend to vote based on foreign policy, how income distribution affects thether they vote Tory or Labor. Also, need to discuss what local aspects of the seat make it different to others - local issues like specialisede local industries, wildlife and what have you. Also need more about the evolving psehology of the seat. Was it in the past a conservative area that evolved into a Labor area? If so, why did this happen, etc. There is a long list of members, so this electorate has a long history, and it give you a lot more to talk about - more unusual elections, histroical developments of the electorate and also, I think you need to discuss if any frontbenchers or prominent parliament members held this seat. eg, see Division of Macarthur, although not very good at all, for a start. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination (2)

I agree with the concerns of the previous reviewer. It seems that much more could be covered here. What is distinctive about this area's politics over time? There just isn't much in the article on that yet. There is a little bit, but not much. This area has 500 years worth of political history. Certainly there is something more to say?

Smaller issues:

  • Peterborough is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally styled The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. - Just want to make sure the "formally styled" is correct. It reads oddly.
  • Franchise section could do with more dates (unreformed, Interregnum).
  • There needs to be a color key at the beginning of the table.

If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel your decision is unnecessarily harsh here. This is not FAC; the article addresses the the main points in context, gives detail where known/ noteworthy but remains focussed; and it is broad in coverage, particularly in comparision to other parliamentary constituency articles (at 42kB length). The primary information, the complete list of members, is a resource which is not compiled anywhere else. The prose is clear, the grammar is correct and it complies with the manual of style guidelines. It is factually accurate, verifiable and properly referenced. In my opinion therefore, it is well written and meets the criteria set-out for a good article. In terms of your specific (smaller) objections:—
  • See British House of Commons article, for the formal style.
  • The Franchise section discusses the key dates 1800 and 1835 (electorate), 1872 (secret ballot), 1832 (Reform Act), 1868 (enfranchising the skilled working class) and 1919 (universal manhood suffrage). The period of the interregnum is covered in the following table, ie. the period between the Long Parliament and its brief restoration.
  • A colour key is redundant, as the table gives the party affiliation (since this existed) in longhand.
Can you please review your decision in light of this, or otherwise set-out your objections in terms of the relevant criteria. Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[copied from Awadewit's talkpage:
  • To be clear, I was not using the FAC criteria while reviewing this article and I was also agreeing with the previous reviewer. It is precisely the issue of broad coverage that is at issue. There are only a few isolated examples of the borough's political history given, not a broad overview. Those are actually two different things and GA demands the overview.
  • I would suggest including dates for the interregnum and other pre-1800 events that are currently just linked for readers who don't know when they happened.
  • I was initially confused by the colors. I had to scroll down through the table and start checking to see if the colors matched with the parties. It is always a good idea to be as explicit about these things as possible - to be as helpful to readers as we can.
You are free to appeal the decision at WP:GAR. Awadewit | talk 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment

Taken to WP:GAR for a reassessment of the above decision. Chrisieboy 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reassessed and listed. Geometry guy 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)