This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willy turner(talk | contribs) at 19:14, 13 September 2009(adding WikiProject Politics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 19:14, 13 September 2009 by Willy turner(talk | contribs)(adding WikiProject Politics)
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.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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
