Content deleted Content added
Titus Gold (talk | contribs) →GA Review: Reply |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 54:
::**The other general comments are really also about prose which I am leaving for now.
::I think if this is a serious candidate for a good article, it needs a lot of work still. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 10:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks for these comments, much appreciated.
:::* I've removed all but one of the citations from the lead (all but two citations in the lead were essentially already mentioned in the body).
:::*Images point there seems to have since been addressed.
:::*I've changed party support bullet points into sentences.
:::*NationCymru is regulated by [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] like many large news article producers. It is often the only news organisation that reports on certain Welsh matters. I could swap in other news articles instead so that Nation.Cymru is used less?
:::*Neutrality: The body of the text looks neutral. Perhaps an addition concerning criticism of devolution perhaps?
:::*Changing references to SFN: I'd be happy to move to SFN but perhaps you would be able to turn your hand to that more easily than myself as it's not a format I'm particularly experienced at using. I'm not sure that everything would be covered without the use of some news articles?
:::Thanks again [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
::::The sections "Assessment of devolution" and "Lack of economic impact" are both new since the original GA assessment also. This heading now includes criticism of the devolution settlements from various viewpoints as well as criticizing the UK and Welsh governments. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 17:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
| |||