Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nick Griffin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Nick Griffin

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Nick Griffin is to be a panellist on next week's BBC Question Time. The programme may generate increased views for this page (I don't know if it will or not), and I think its important that on such an occasion, Wikipedia should be able to present as unbiased and as neutral an article as possible on what is obviously a contentious subject. I have no support for Griffin or his policies, or for those of his peers, but in the recent GAR there was still evidence of my bias against him, in the edits I have made (I've probably written most of this article).

I'd very much like this to be reviewed quickly, so that the article is ship-shape before next Thursday's (22nd) broadcast, which has been reported regularly in the media. The article is already protected against vandalism.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steve Smith

edit

This is a good article about a somewhat less good man. The prose is some distance from perfect, though I've tried to improve it where I can. It also uses some terminology that is unlikely to be familiar to all English speakers (me, for example). Some specific comments:

  • The article frequently uses a comma after the first item of a two-item list. I've removed those occurrences, but now I'm doubting myself: is there some British grammatical convention by which this is done? I've certainly never seen it, but, as I am loathe to admit, I don't know everything.
  • I'd suggest replacing the {{quote}} templates whose contents are not integrated into the article (i.e. all but the first, sixth, and eighth) with {{quote box}} or similar, as the current format seems to break up the text unnecessarily. For the three that are incorporated into the text, I'd advise removing the speaker's name, since it's clear from context.
    • I've put the Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson quotes in a quotebox, and removed one quote entirely as it wasn't really long enough to warrant inclusion (I changed it to prose). I've also removed those names as suggested. Parrot of Doom 12:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The adjective "strong" is rather overused here. I'd actually recommend eliminating all of its occurrences, since it doesn't really add anything and can be construed as being POV.
  • "During a union debate his affiliation..." I'm not familiar with the concept of a union debate. Is it a Britishism? Is there an article to which it could be wikilinked?
    • Possibly there is an article, but nothing specific. Union debates are simply debates held by the local student union (a grouping of students which exists to help other students through their education). Union debates are good training grounds for politicians, many of our current politicians would have been union presidents, leaders, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He helped set up the White Noise Music Club in 1979..." Could a two or three word description of what this is be incorporated into the sentence?
  • "As a member of the National Front Griffin contested the seat of Croydon North West twice, in 1981 and 1983." While I gather he lost, some mention of the result of these elections would be good.
    • This has been frustrating. I haven't found a single reliable source for this, hence the incomplete table. I'm slightly nervous about putting it into prose without a reference, as such things can easily be overlooked with time. Parrot of Doom 12:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later stewarded a public Holocaust denial meeting hosted by David Irving." I'm not aware of this definition of steward, and I don't see anything in Merriam Webster that seems to apply. Would this be the same as chairing a meeting? Is that terminology used in the UK?
    • In Britain, if you're stewarding something it usually means that you're involved in some minor capacity, like showing guests the way in, stopping people parking their cars in the wrong places, making sure people get to where they're supposed to be, etc. Its a fairly general job role. Parrot of Doom 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Griffin re-entered politics in 1993..." In what capacity?
  • "Although Tyndall had in 1982 founded the BNP, its links to extremism helped Griffin in his 1999 campaign to replace Tyndall as BNP leader." Awkward and unclear. As I read it, what helped Griffin was Tyndall's extremism, not the BNP's (if the BNP had been more extremist, it seems more likely that it would have supported Tyndall over Griffin, no?). Anyway, I think the sentence should be rewritten.
  • "One of Griffin's changes included the party's strong emphasis on the removal of multiculturalism," There's a verb missing here. Did his changes include "introducing the party's strong emphasis", "eliminating the party's strong emphasis", "modifying the party's strong emphasis", or what?
    • Another good point, I've added 'moderating' as that seems to be most neutral. The BNP, and Griffin, still object to multiculturalism, although not quite in the same fashion as they once did (boots and fists) Parrot of Doom 12:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...for less serious crimes such as juvenile delinquency." I'm not sure juvenile delinquency qualifies as a "less serious crime", since it can include murder, rape, etc. Juvenile delinquency is a type of crime defined not by the actions but by the people committing them, which strikes me as independent of seriousness.
  • In the second paragraph of 2002–2009, I'm not clear whether the vote totals reported (58,347 vs. 8,993) were for all of Wales or South Wales West. The relatively low figures leads me to believe the latter, but the use of "BNP" as a subject, rather than "Griffin", suggests the former.
  • The last paragraph of 2002–2009 is a weak spot, both because it's not made clear to whom he appealed and because it suggests that he defended questions, when I presume that he defended the BNP against the questions (otherwise I am confused).

That's it for now. More comments will come, either tomorrow or Monday. Steve Smith (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) -[reply]

  • "...and that the Labour government was attempting to influence the results of the following year's general election." This appears to me to be redundant; doesn't going after an alleged block vote necessarily mean trying to influence an election?
  • "...the day after it was broadcast on 15 July 2004." This is slightly ambiguous, in that it could mean that it was broadcast 15 July or that 15 July was the day after the broadcast.
  • "...charged with four offences of using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred." In Canada, the word we'd use here is "charges" in place of "offences". I didn't want to change it in case it's British English, though.
  • "...debates at several university institutions." I know a university institution can be just part of a university rather than the whole thing, but I still think that replacing "university institutions" with "universities" would be more concise without losing meaning. I leave it to the article's regular editors.
  • "The two had met earlier in the year..." I assume this refers to Griffin and al-Masri?
  • "Lake wanted Griffin to visit the university and explain the BNP's policies to lecturers and students. It was, however, viewed by some as an attempt by the party to establish a foothold on the university campus." I don't see any inconsistency between these two views that would justify the use of "however". They seem not only compatible, but mutually supporting. Am I missing something?

More to come later. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) -[reply]

  • "It would restore the earnings link with pensions..." This didn't make sense to me absent context. Is there a wikilink that can be provided?
    • Its a British thing, basically there used to be a link between the state pension and the average wage. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would something like "re-implement the indexing of pensions to the average national wage" or similar be accurate? It's a few more words, but I think it would be clearer to non-British readers (and I think Nick Griffin's a subject likely to be of some interest to non-British readers). Your call, though. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see where you're heading, but the problem would be that most people in this country only know 'pensions earnings link'. I think a wikilink would suit better, I'll have a search around for a related article/section. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's unnecessary to give the dates of his various interviews in the body of the text (though they should of course be found in the footnotes).
    • I disagree - Griffin has, with greater popularity, moderated and changed his views and the policies of his party. I think its best to keep the dates in, so people don't get confused with the timeline. Have a look for "Nick Griffin The Cook Report" on YouTube, this was well before he because mainstream, and that's the history he has to overcome. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point is well-taken. In that case, though, I'd still prefer to generalize somewhat (something like "In 2001 he stated that Hindus and whites had both been _targeted in that year's "Muslim" riots. The same year, he claimed that radical Muslim clerics..." I think it's possible to provide temporal context without listing the date and publication in which every comment is made; for readers who want that information, it's available in the footnotes. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had a think about this, and I think I'll leave them as is. I was going to change them but then, there are doubtless times where Griffin has appeared on the same channel or programme more than once in a year. It isn't a biggie though for me. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a decision by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the BNP's membership criteria." This could use elaboration: we're given Griffin's response to the investigation, but nothing about the basis of the investigation itself.
  • Though I recognize that this is somewhat inevitable, the "Policies and views" section sometime speaks more about the BNP than about Griffin.
    • The BNP is however primarily directed by Griffin, and the article does mention this. I included those policies by request, at the recent GAR. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I know there's only so much you can do, and you do establish Griffin's primacy in BNP policy-development. Wherever possible, if you have sources showing the BNP and Griffin expressing the same view, I think you should use the one that attributes it directly to Griffin. But year, there is some inevitability there. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some concerns about sourcing: swaths of the article seem to rely on primary sourcing, including old versions of the BNP's website and YouTube-hosted videos of press conferences. This is supposed to be a tertiary source, in which we let secondary sources interpret the primary sources for us.

I don't think that this article is FA-ready: before it went there, I'd want so see a shift towards secondary sourcing, a better job of establishing the context of some statements, a better narrative structure (with a focus on Griffin himself), and at least two or three more copyedits (I could do another once I've re-acquired some distance from the article). Good luck! Steve Smith (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think its a problem to use primary sources in these instances. The YouTube video is linked from the BNP's site, and appears to be their 'official' channel, and its indisputable that it is Griffin making the comments in the video. It certainly isn't a copy-vio from a major news source, its a very amateurish job, and appears to have the best view of events. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I didn't mean I was concerned with the accuracy or copyright status of the sources (my concerns would be much stronger if I was). The issue is that when using primary sources, you're either going to provide a bare listing of facts (which is fine in some cases; I often use primary sources to source vote totals in elections) or insert a degree of your own analysis. Besides that, we're supposed to use secondary sources to decide what's important and worth including: if Griffin gives two speeches, and secondary sources ignore one but report on the other extensively, we're supposed to take from that that the second speech is more important, and should be given greater prominence in the article. It's easy for two editors to write radically different articles about the same subject relying on the same primary sources, but somewhat more difficult to do with secondary sources, since you're relying on the analysis (implicit and explicit) of the secondary source authors. Anyway, this article's pretty good, and people drawn to it on Thursday shouldn't be disappointed; I just don't think it's ready for the bronze star at this juncture. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Geometry guy

edit

I've watchlisted the page for Thursday (the broadcast is compatible with my timezone), but I'll base my comments on the idea that you might want the article to have some of the gloss of a featured article candidate in case it receives significant attention.

That would be excellent, I hadn't originally planned for FA but the article is now getting into quite good shape, and I think it may just pass. Feel free to chop and change as you desire. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the prose suggests intention or implication (implicitly or explicitly), be sure that it is sourced. Here are a few examples.

  • In the lead, "...since becoming leader of the BNP he has distanced himself from these opinions" suggests a causal relationship, which is probably true, but needs to be sourced, and I'm not sure that the material in the article does this. Instead, the next sentence ("He is a critic of aspects of Islam") might be used to set his views in context, by noting that he remains critical of aspects of Islam (in contrast to his moderation in relation to Sikhs, Jews, Hindus etc.)
  • In the first section "Undeterred, he later founded the Young National Front Student organisation" is there a source saying he was undeterred?
  • "This realignment was designed to position the BNP alongside successful European far-right groups, such as the French Front National." Surely, but does a source credit this as design?
  • "As a teenager he had accompanied his father to a National Front meeting,[1][11] and by 1978, he was a national organiser for the party." This is confusing. Did he become a national organiser as a result of attending one meeting?
    • Probably not, but there isn't yet a reliable source that says so more conclusively. Its unfortunate, most of the material available online is somewhat negatively biased, and what isn't, is the exact opposite. Its hard to pick out whats true, and whats false, but generally I think we've managed ok, User:Slatersteven has been excellent at finding faults with the article, leading to its improvement. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result the party became more radicalised, and a dissatisfied Griffin,..." Are "radicalised" and "dissatisfied" sourced?

My remaining comments concern the prose, which is pretty decent, but might benefit from the attention of a good copyeditor. I rate myself only as A minus here, so I will just add a few general comments.

  • Long noun phrases are hard to read: the first sentence of "Early life and education" is an example. Also don't try to say too much in one sentence.
  • Try to find the best (most interesting and active) subject for each sentence: "The National Front had, since the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher, seen a distinct drop in its membership" is a good example. Membership of the National Front is crying out to be the subject here, and this would also fix another issue: the subclause does not need to interrupt the main clause.
  • Omit needless words: "The location of the venue..." is one example; similarly "does however maintain" could be "maintains" (leaving interpretation to the reader).
  • There's a dislocation between the prose and the Timothy King quote.

If I have time in the next few days, I will comment further. Geometry guy 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, its much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, and thanks for your clarifications. Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Nick_Griffin/archive1&oldid=321298446"
  NODES
Idea 1
idea 1
Note 4
Project 1