Talk:Centre-right politics/GA1

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 10:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly, politics isn't my usual area of interest so forgive me for any gaps in knowledge here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some minor tweaks to prose have been suggested below. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Prose is clear and understandable to even a politically naive person such as myself. Kudos to the nominator for their prose skills as I envy their ability to write such well put together sentences. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article complies with the necessary components of the MOS. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	reflist exists. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Because so many sources were used and some weren't open access I focused on the sources I could access without TWL as I was feeling too lazy to open it. I tried to take a look at the sfns from several sections. I found no issues with the sources. I spotchecked the following: [1] [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Everything was put into the authors own words. I have no concerns about plagiarism here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are some suggestions below where I feel additional detail could be helpful. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Anywhere where I felt like there could be more information there were no sources to add such information. I feel that this article goes into an appropriate amount of detail. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No obvious issues here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are properly tagged (there's even a FP in there). IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All pictures seem relevant and are appropriately captioned. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until Thebiguglyalien addresses my feedback. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] This article meets all GA criteria as outlined above. All of my feedback has been addressed. Great work! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For criterion 1, 3, and 4 I usually read through the article carefully and provide feedback as I read. This often looks like me suggesting things be reworded, me asking for further explanation etc. Oftentimes I will ask questions about the article that comes from a place of not being educated in the topic. Sometimes these questions don't have answers or don't result in any changes needing to be made. I ask these questions so I can better understand the topic and thus better provide feedback. Throughout this process I often make small changes to grammar or punctionation. I try to make these changes by section and if you disagree with any changes I make feel free to revert them! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologies

As someone not familiar with politics/economics Christian democrats are more open to state intervention than conservatives is a bit unclear to me. I'm assuming you mean things like welfare or social programs? I tries to find an appropriate wikilink and found Interventionism (politics) and Market intervention but I'm not sure if those are appropriate here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "market intervention" and wikilinked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm unfamiliar with this subject, but could you further explain Political scientists disagree as to whether post-war Christian democracy is continuous with that of the 19th century,[12] and Christian democracy is sometimes regarded separately from the typical right-wing voter bloc as I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded the first half of the sentence to be clearer. The second half is what the source says, but I don't really know what it's trying to say, so I've removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know countries don't need to be wikilinked but what about "Anglosphere"? (bit of a nitpick, feel free to ignore as you did explain what the term meant) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Positions

though centre-right parties that have less appeal among working class voters have less incentive to dedicate themselves to these positions. Could you reword this a bit? It's a little unclear what you are trying to say here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is optional and a bit more of a nitpick so feel free to ignore but Centre-right parties support environmental preservation, though they are often seen as less interested in the subject than left-wing parties. The centre-right rejects concepts of climate grief or catastrophism, arguing that they can reduce interest in solving environmental issues. is a bit short for a stand-alone paragraph. I was wondering if there is more information about how the centre-right beliefs around environmental issues intersect with their beliefs regarding economics. Oftentimes when environmental issues are brought up there are conversations about what is more cost-effective or aligns more with parties' economic beliefs as well. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- These were the only sources I was able to find specifically about the centre-right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

The European centre-right declined between 1931 and 1935 as the Great Depression set in. do sources suggest reasons as to why the Great Depression caused this decline? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked the cited source, it only says "economic conditions". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  All of your replies look good. Thanks for explaining those things and the changes you made. I'll update my review shortly! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.