Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disamb. links.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
In lead, comma between " 1979 general election" and "she"

"precipitate"->"precipitious"

"Labour majority by 6,000.[23]" - can you state a percentage of the margin?
Not yet done; need ref.--John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ref does not contain this information, sadly, and there is no immediately available source for the percentage. --John (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comma between "in Kent in 1950" and "she met"

comma between "1970 general election" and "she was"

"3,612 proposed comprehensives;" -> "3,612 proposed transitions to comprehensive secondary school systems;" or some other elaboration

Delete: "the man who brought battery farming to Britain and" - POV

Define IEA with a parenthetical after its first appearence.

Please reword, " Thatcher now became the face of the ideological movement that opposed the welfare state Keynesian economics they believed was weakening Britain."

comma between "the name" and "and it soon became"

"the government's"->"the Labour government's"

comma between "retirement" and "a senior Palace source"

" to be refused an honorary doctorate by the University of Oxford.[57]"->" to not receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Oxford.[57]"

Reword: "armed with a speech written by the playwright Ronald Millar[62]"

Argumentative tone: "Throughout the 1980s, revenue from the 90% tax on North Sea oil extraction was used as a short-term funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of reform, rather than being invested in long term projects.[66]"

Why define Thatcherism in the economics section vs a general section?

Under Foreign Affairs, add comma between "year as Prime Minister" and "she supported"

comma between "In April 1986" and "Thatcher"

Isn't the quote at [80] long enough for a blockquote?
Quote moved out of article and into ref. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in the build-up to the Gulf War.[97]" - British troops did more than participate in the build-up.

NCB - define.

comma between " In 1979" and "Geoffrey Howe"

Under Northern Ireland, comma between "In 1981" and "a number"

Please rephrase: "British membership of the single currency."

"From 1993 to 2000, Lady Thatcher served as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, which was established by Royal Charter in 1693. She was also Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, the UK's only private university." - This requires some explanation.
Please clarify. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a few words to describe the Chancellor position. Is it mostly honorary or ceremonial? In the United States, the CEO of a University is sometimes called its Chancellor.
Per this, it's clearly an honorary position as is the norm in the UK. Clarified article. --John (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of parallel sentence structure implies that the Chancellor of University of Buckingham is not honorary. Could you consider adding a second "honorary" in front of "Chancellor" there as well? Racepacket (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarified. --John (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comma between "In 1999" and "she visited him"

comma between "In February 2007" and "she became"

"invited back to Number 10 in late"->"invited back to 10 Downing Street in late" - avoid inside jargon
Is it "Number 10 Downing Street" or just "10 Downing Street"? Racepacket (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please rephrase: "As the individualistic credo expressed above took hold of Thatcher's Britain, egalitarian concerns dwindled."

Navigation footer templates should not go into the "See also" section.
All done, except where noted. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Fn 35 and 162 are dead. Please mark fn 116 as subscription required.

Page cites mission for Fn 65

Resolve [citations needed]

The the GA Reassessment, Geometry Guy argued that the article was biased by using pro-Thatcher sources. Do you have any comment on this?
I believe this criticism is no longer valid following the rewrite, and would value GG's input on it. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Did she have any impact on more women serving in government or in higher positions?

Regarding focus, can the article focus more on Thatcher's personal role rather than the historical episodes. For example, one could just state that Thatcher quickly decided to send troops to retake the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, She marshalled world opinion behind her. It was a success, and increased her popularity before the general election.
Thatcher had very little influence on women in politics. I've added a sentence to the end of the Resignation section to make that clear: "Despite being Britain's first woman Prime Minister, Thatcher had done 'little to advance the political cause of women'". Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Fair use claim for Coat of Arms would be stronger if it were discussed in the text of the article.
Per this news story I am taking the image down. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. There are so many more important things to include. Racepacket (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 18[edit]

Would "Media depictions" be a better title than "Cultural depictions" - you are not discussing sculpture or paintings?
- I've no objection to that, so changed.
Falkland War still unfocused. What was her role — did she rally international support?
- As chair of the War Cabinet she basically ran the war, as the article now says. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am looking in Hastings and Jenkins. Will report back. --John (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have tried to address this criticism; please see what you think. --John (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Done.
I would change "When she met with US" to just "She met with US" because two consecutive sentences beginning with "When" does not read well.
- Changed to "During Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990, Thatcher was visiting the US. When she met with US President George H. W. Bush, who had succeeded Reagan in 1989 ...". Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That works for me. --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During this period, was immigration a controversial subject?
- It was, and it remains a controverisl subject. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was Thatcher's role in the immigration debate?

- - I've added a snippet to clarify this. --John (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. Done.
Was there not a central UK authority to monitor the success of privatizations and public-private partnerships? Did they have objective assessments of these moves?
- No central UK authority so far as I'm aware. Privatisation and so on was a part of Thatcher's philisophy of "small government". Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - National Audit Office that appears to give privatization mixed reviews. Shouldn't the article refer to the NAO's work? Also there are many academic studies (e.g., http://www.cesifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%202004/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%20February%202004/cesifo1_wp1126.pdf) but I would think that the NAO would have more credibillity.
    - The function of the NAO is to audit government spending, not to make long-term assessments of the success or otherwise of government strategy. But you asked about a "central UK authority", not academic studies. Whether or not privatisation was or was not ultimately successful is a judgement call; this is a biography of Margaret Thatcher, not an analysis of her policies Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Inclined to agree with Malleus here; it would be OR for us to graft mixed reviews for privatization onto this article unless it mentions the subject by name. We already cover the pros and cons of privatization in (maybe too much) detail as it is. --John (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there any way to recast the Privatization debate in more objective terms? I was hoping that NAO or scholars would be better than ideological opponents. I am not well suited to evaluate the degree that this section is POV. However, there must be some respected authorities that can be marshalled for this paragraph. Privatization is clearly one of the most significant portions of her legacy. Look at Evans p. 24-29.
        This is a valid suggestion and I am still looking for sources on it. --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The next day, Michael Heseltine" =>"The next day at the party conference, Michael Heseltine" ?
- It was the day following Howe's resignation speech, we haven't said anything about a party conference. In fact the party conference that year took place the previous month, in October. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should be clear as to where the post Haseltine votes played out - was it at Parliament or at a party meeting?
    - I'm not sure what you're asking. There was a leadership election; they're conducted in private amongst the members of the parliamentary party, neither in parliament nor at a conference. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please modify the article to explicitly state who was doing the voting.
        It's done by post. --John (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Here is another ref from 2010. --John (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC) oops, not postal at that time but a secret ballot. --John (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that the minutiae of how this was conducted (on which I have inadvertently now become an expert) are not germane to our article here, although I think there's another article which will be expanded as a result. The important facts about how her resignation came to be seem adequately covered at the moment, which I think is the important thing. Can we mark this as closed? --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest, "Heseltine attracted sufficient support from the parliamentary party in the first round of voting to force the contest to a second ballot."->"Heseltine attracted sufficient support from among Conservative Party members of the House of Commons in the first round of voting to force the contest to a second ballot." -say who voted.

Excellent suggestion, and I apologize for misjudging your intention. I take your point and will implement it. --John (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says that Thatcher had done "little to advance the political cause of women" - does this mean the status of women in British society generally or the opportunities for women in British politics?
- It means the opportunities for women in British politics. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we clarify the text of the article beyond the ambiguous quotation?
    - It seems perfectly clear to me, as it must have done to the author of the quotation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about, "Despite being Britain's first woman Prime Minister, Thatcher rarely appointed or mentored other female politicians and had done "little to advance the political cause of women".[153]"
        I am in agreement with Malleus here; I believe that to go further into a feminist analysis of Thatcher is to risk verging into WP:UNDUE or even WP:COATRACK territory. Can we mark this also as closed? --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I differ to your judgment.

So we have outstanding the vote to oust her and the privatization section. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the work on this article will be never-ending, particularly as more books are written about her and she is reassessed over time. But it is clear that the article now meets and exceeds the GA criteria. Congratulations on your hard work. Racepacket (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, same from me too, many thanks to User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:John, User:Geometry guy for the major works and also User:Racepacket for his experienced review and time spent on the two reviews and to User:EyeSerene, User:Hamiltonstone and anyone else I may have missed, and a special thanks to User:One Night In Hackney for being resolute in his position that the article needed improvement and for his detailed review that assisted the rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]