Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because major POV and serious MOS concerns riddle this article. Very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article. I would like to the article to be at least GA standard.

Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I am going to read through and comment as things arise.

Lead

• Per WP:LEAD the lead is too long - it should be no more than four paragraphs but is currently six
• Be consistent about numbers - spell out numbers 10 or less so giving them the eighth largest share of the vote (however they only contested English seats, and came 5th [fifth] in these
• I think that controversial claims about a living person need a cite, even in the lead, so Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP was overtly anti-Semitic; ...
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way

References

• There are quite a few dead links, see here Not sure if these can be found on the Internet Archive or not.
• Avoid direct external links in the article, use inline citations instead (so fix for example the long quotation starting In a speech to local party activists in Burnley in March 2006, he said: "We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. ..." which has only an EL and no refs as such.
• Article needs more references, for one example of many, see the Racial policies section As the party now states on its website: "The British National Party believes in telling the truth, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable to hear ..." is a long direct quote without a cite. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Refs should be in numerical order, so fix The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right[13][14][15][12] ...
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair[25],[26][27] ...
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. ((cite web)) and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs for books and journals are formatted inconsistently too - they should all follow WP:CITE
• There are several citation needed tags which need to be fixed.

General and MOS points

• There are three dab links - see here
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower (Nick Griffin picture). Any chance for more images?
• Why is the British National Party (1960) not mentioned or linked in this article?

NPOV

• My biggest concern with the article is POV, as it seems fairly anti-BNP. It should not be pro- or anti-, just neutral. Please compare it to such Good Articles on political parties as Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Democratic Action Party, Green Party of Canada, Portuguese Communist Party, and United Malays National Organisation. I do not see any FAs on parties for comparison. I can go into more detail if needed.
• Many of the other issues raised have a bearing on POV too - the lead seems too detailed and POV
• The broken refs are mostly to BNP sites, so the claims cannot be backed up AND this indicates that the policies cited have changed since the broken links. Is this article about the current BNP or the BNP of a few years ago?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]