Content deleted Content added
ChristieBot (talk | contribs) m Transcluding GA review |
m →top: Fixed/removed unknown WikiProject parameter(s) and general fixes per WP:Talk page layout |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Article history
| action1 = AFD
| action1link = Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Welsh_Devolution
| action1result = kept
| action1oldid =
| action2 = GAN
| action2date = 18:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
| action2link = /GA1
| action2result = failed
| action2oldid = 1111186415
| action3 = GAN
| action3date = 21:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
| action3link = /GA2
| action3result = failed
| action3oldid = 1150199435
| currentstatus = FGAN
| itndate =
| dykdate =
| dykentry =
| dyknom =
| topic = politics and government
| collapse =
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B |1=
{{WikiProject Wales
| importance = Top
}}
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Mid}}
}}
== Roman history is not relevant to [[devolution]] ==
Line 42 ⟶ 65:
* [[commons:File:Tony-blair-neil-jenkins.png|Tony-blair-neil-jenkins.png]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-07-24T02:22:19.567291 | Tony-blair-neil-jenkins.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony-blair-neil-jenkins.png|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
== Close paraphrase and source issues ==
Line 52 ⟶ 73:
*:That sentence has since been replaced. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
*::I've also added the correct book for those citations. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 21:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
== Good article review progress ==
Following a second failed good artilce review, it seems that different points for improvement have been made, which are all different points to the first review.Summarising them here for follow up:
* Expand on current areas of devolution
* Impact of devolution and how devolution has affected Wales (not just quotes)
* Cleanup of references
*(Potential move of section to new article on proposed further devolution): this would need discussion
[[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 22:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]], this article has a chance, but not right now. Agree with the summarised points above. This article should ideally discuss more on how devolution has operated, may be a bit more on government, the policy areas etc. The article also is mostly more pro-devolution and pro-more devolution, so may be not exactly NPOV.
:Would support to a degree splitting off the proposed devolution section so the article is not slanted into the hypotheticals, although best to set up a formal split proposal and discussion for that, although at the same time, is such detail needed? and can it be summarised, removing/shortening a bunch of quotes as in the end they're opinions. Happy to help, although if this is a big task, won't be able to until early May.
:Also I wonder, as this leans on the more-powers, pro-devolution side a bit, and that about 20% apparently want to abolish the Senedd, or the 38% in the other poll, should there be a small "scepticism" section? also mentioning the abolishment movement, in some detail, but not too much, and including pro-devolution responses to it. As [[Senedd]] is on the actual legislature and the argument usually centres on devolution itself, I find it more suitable here. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
::I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on what the article scope is supposed to be. Is it 1) the legal devolution of powers to the Welsh government that began in 1998—as suggested by the first sentence in the article—or 2) any legal differentiation between Wales and England, which began earlier? RS more commonly mean 1) so I believe information about 2) should be trimmed from the article. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Buidhe|Buidhe]], I guess it combines legal devolution with general political national development and autonomy done prior. Than solely focusing on the existence of "devolution". I guess it kinda acts as a "Welsh autonomy" article (not supporting a move), but it should be just devolution ideally. [[Draft:Political history of Wales]] was attempted, as an alternative ___location, but was draftified, incomplete and suffered recentism, and was duplicated from this article.
:::May be the split initially proposed above [[Talk:Welsh devolution#Splitting Page into: "History of Welsh devolution" and "Proposed further Welsh devolution"]] be considered to improve scope, although [[Political history of Wales]] rather than History of Welsh devolution, and that done with more research than the prior attempt. This article then expanding more on the present situation since 1998 and the few commissions/referendums prior. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::::The issue is that the 19th century home rule and disestablishment movements are not typically called devolution, and if you search Welsh devolution on Google Scholar for instance the sources are about 1998–present. So, if these earlier movements are not part of the article topic they should not be covered in depth in this article (mentioned as background, yes). ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::And indeed there is other history that is not relevant here, but when I attempted to pare that back, it was reverted back in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_devolution&diff=1149787371&oldid=1149776007]. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] the summary was a [[Wikipedia:POV]] concern and did not provide adequate context. Have another go if you want. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps we could move parts to [[Draft:Political history of Wales]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::To me, I find how pro-devolution and pro-further devolution the article is to be the more major POV concern than adding extra Welsh history details pre-devolution. Don’t mind if that history is removed or kept although if Political history is made into an acceptable article would be more suited there. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 16:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You're welcome to make additions to bring more balance. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm happy to see more criticism of devolution and analysis of devolution added to the article as a GA review suggest for the latter.
:::::::::I would consider moving large amounts of text to [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] but I'm not sure this would benefit the reader.
:::::::::A split could be considered to something like:
:::::::::[[History of Welsh devolution]] and [[Future of Welsh devolution]]/[[Proposed Welsh devolution]], as previously mentioned. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|the summary was a Wikipedia:POV concern}} how are removal of statements like "Llywelyn the Last was killed in an ambush by an English soldier in 1282." form an article about Welsh Devolution a POV concern? If you want to establish context, you only need a sentence or two. Something like: {{tqb|Wales was conquered by Edward I of England and was annexed to the realm. The Laws in Wales act of Henry VIII created a unitary state with a defined Welsh border, and the unitary state persisted with the union of Scotland and later Ireland into the Inited Kingdom.}} This still may be too much or not ideal wording, but all we need to establish here is that the UK is a unitary state. Indeed, we could just say that and omit the conquest altogether. Instead you have text that is copied from and to several other pages. This exact text is on [[Politics of Wales]] and comes from (but adapted from) [[Wales in the High Middle Ages]] but also has been found on [[Wales in the Middle Ages]] and [[Welsh History]]. It was also on the now merged [[English rule in Wales]] as well as [[Welsh rebellions against English rule]]. You also have it on [[Welsh independence]] and I am willing to bet it is on other articles I haven't yet found.
::::::::::There is a POV concern here, and that is that this article seems to begin with grievance and to establish a context of devolution as the end of a long struggle for independence, by which this then looks like a half way measure. This is somewhat ahistorical, but more importantly, it is irrelevant in this article. This article is about devolution, so we don't need to know about Llywelyn, nor any of that rather detailed history section. This is in the same way we don't include it in the [[Welsh Revolt]] or [[Owain Glyndŵr]] pages. Does it leave that section too brief? Sure it does. So remove the section, which rather incongruously sits before the history section. The context can go in the history section, probably non-linearly. Again, the only context required is that the UK is a unitary state.
::::::::::A final point: I agree we should not have a separate [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] page at this time. I think this should be a section on this page. I prefer to see a page grow organically, and where a part of the page becomes overweight, and is not usefully cut back, then a split will propose itself. I don't think we are there yet. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::After reading your comment I have since made a page, [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] but have now realised I misread your support, so apologies for that.
:::::::::::Nevertheless I actually think it all sits well with a reader and I have made a summary of proposed further devolution on this article to replace the content I moved over. The move seems to address any concern about too much devolution proposals in this article
:::::::::::Pinging @[[User:DankJae|DankJae]] and @[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Perhaps take it back to draft for now? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Appreciate the sensible suggestion, but it doesn't seem like it needs to be draftified as it looks. As long as there is no opposition to this bold split after having a look at both pages as they stand? [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 21:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Overall neutral on the split, while it would be greater long term to have it all in one article, the pre-existing section did give excess weight to proposals, and I believe more detail can be added to the proposals which would overload this article, so don't mind it, and am fine with it. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
== Correct Welsh name ==
Is it "Datganoli i Gymru" (what this article says) or "Datganoli Cymru" (title of the cywiki article)? ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:It is both. The difference between devolution for Wales and Welsh devolution (pretty much… !). The latter is a tad better, more concise and consistent with Welsh Wikipedia, as you point out, so I changed it. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::"Datganoli i Gymru" = "Devolution to Wales" or "Devolution for Wales"; "Datganoli Cymru" = "Devolution of Wales"
::Both correct. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
== Interesting article for insight additions ==
Some suggestions as to why the majority in the '98 referendum was relatively narrow: https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-07-20/worries-language-mafia-almost-cost-victory-in-welsh-devolution-referendum [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:It's a news report which picks up on one comment from one person and makes a headline out of it. We don't want pages that are following newspapers. There must surely be much better secondary sources analysing that referendum. What can we learn from them? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::Just thought it might add a bit more depth and variety to the understanding of the factors influencing the referendum. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Might also be a valuable addition to [[1997 Welsh devolution referendum]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
== Update needed: Constitutional Commission ==
https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf
There are various secondary sources to look at in the news, all published today. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
| |||