Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Front (UK)/archive2: Difference between revisions

National Front (UK)

National Front (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/National Front (UK)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/National Front (UK)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/National Front (UK)/archive3

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the foremost fascist parties in British history, one which was at its heyday in the 1970s. Given the current far-right resurgence across many Western countries, this article is particularly topical. It became a GA in June 2018 and then went through an unsuccessful FAC that ended in October. The main concern of reviewers at that time was the length. Since then, I have worked to make substantial cut-backs to the prose to get the overall length down, and I now hope that it might have greater luck in becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg needs a stronger FUR, as does File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Verifiability: A sample of spotchecks revealed no issues of verifiability or close paraphrasing
• Quality and reliability: The main sources are the same as those for the previous archived FAC, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
• Formatting: There are no evident issues with formatting
• External links: All links to sources are working. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

We're coming up on a month without any prose review or support for promotion. This will have to be archived in the next week if we don't see some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ping some of the editors who commented on the article when it was at FAC last time to see if they have an further thoughts and/or a desire to support the nomination this time around: @Wehwalt:; @Vanamonde93:; @Tony1:; @Carabinieri:; @Casliber:. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You have the gall to ask me to return to this forum after treating me like shit, bullying me, threathening me? Really? Go to hell and burn. Tony (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC) CLARIFICATION: Not the nominator: the whole lot of you. Tony (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SN 54129

Placeholder; on this 15/16 April. Just got to dig out my diary from the battle of Waterloo  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

The article is quite long for a minor party, but offers an informative and interesting read. I'm bemused that fascism still has followers after the global war against the Nazis. These are of triviality, but do you consider removing non-wiki links in the last section (there are quite a few)? Also, I would like to see wiki links to publishers in the sources (Routledge, OUP, and so on). I'm quite surprised that this hasn't got much attention yet. Good luck with the article and all the best, HĐ (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, HĐ. By "non-wiki links" do you mean the red links? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)