Talk:Gateway Protection Programme

Gateway Protection Programme is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Gateway Protection Programme received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

United Kingdom Unassessed

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help!
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Gateway Protection Programme appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 July 2009 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/July.

Wikipedia

Peer review suggested improvements

The article's peer review resulted in the following suggestions, which I have annotated so as to show how I (or other editors) have responded:

Lead: I think you mean "actual" rather than "eventual" Fixed

Programme details

Why is the first sentence there? It doesn't seem to have any purpose. I disagree - it serves a purpose as far as I can see

Second sentence far too long, needs to be split after "Home Office". Then: "If they meet the criteria they are brought..." etc. But can you specify whose criteria you mean? Fixed

History

There is a long gap in time in your discussion of the quota number. We have a sentence about Blunkett's intentions to set the quota at 1,000 during the second year of operation (2002–03), then suddenly we are told the 2008–09 figure. At the very least there needs to be a linking sentence or two after "slow to take off", stating that despite such-and-such pressures and because of this-and-that factors, the number remained at 500 per annum Fixed

You should reverse the order of paragraphs, so that the ancient history is discussed before the more recent stuff. What were the dates of the Mandate Refugee Scheme (Palestine 1948?) and the Ten or More Plan? Fixed order, added available details

Refugees resettled under the programme: There is no need to repeat in the text exactly the information provided in the table - which really ought to be in this section instead of the Burmese picture, which might go elsewhere. So the sentences: "In 2004, 150 refugees were resettled. This fell to 50 in 2005 but rose to 355 in 2006 and 485 in 2007" are unnecessary. What seems missing from the section is any reason why the figures were initially so low. Fixed; reason for low numbers given in history section

Resettlement locations: 15 local authorities out of how many? It would be good to know. Fixed

General point: MOS encourages the use of no-break spaces. See WP:NBSP Fixed

If you have any comments on this, please leave them below. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]