Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gateway Protection Programme/archive3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gateway_Protection_Programme/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a refugee resettlement scheme operated by the British government since 2004. A longstanding good article, I first (unsuccessfully) nominated it for FA status some five and a half years ago. After a long break from editing, I returned to Wikipedia recently and saw that the article was in need of updating. New source material had also been published in the meantime, and I was able to use it to update and expand the article. The article is extremely stable (mainly because few other editors have bothered to edit it, leaving me as almost the sole author, which may be a problem - I don't know). I hope that it now covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well written enough to be promoted. I recently nominated it for FA status again and addressed some helpful comments left by Nikkimaria and Jimfbleak, but ultimately it didn't attract enough comments and was archived. Following discussion with Ian Rose, I am renominating it and will actively seek out reviewers so that it gets a proper review this time. The article is very topical in the current climate regarding migration to the UK, and it would be good to get this to FA status. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've checked the changes since the last FAC, and there is nothing that needs fixing. I've an idea that we don't require linking to entities as well known as countries, but not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting read and very little reported on it. Only comment would be to clarify that North West England and Yorkshire and Humberside are regions. Keith D (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Keith D. I'm glad you found the article interesting. Does this edit address your comment about the regions? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes it clearer. Thanks Keith D (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. A few usage and content issues:

• Three instances of the form "... by the then British Home Secretary ..." The 'the then' is unnecessary – it is always assumed in historical writing that all positions were as of the time being written about – when writing about World War II you don't say 'the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill'.
  • "Then" removed.
• Why is "'Lisbon Speech'" in quotes? Is it well-known, and I'm just not knowing it? If it isn't, just say speech in Lisbon perhaps?
  • Done.
• "The legal basis for the programme's funding ..." ends up being a really run-on sentence. Make the House of Lords part be a separate sentence without a parenthetical.
  • Fixed, I think.
• No statistics for the tables later than 2012? It's noticeable because the text next to the first table is giving related figures for 2013.
  • The Home Office hasn't published statistics on the scheme that regularly. The tables are based on an evaluation document in which statistics up to 2012 were presented. I haven't been able to find comparable statistics for 2013 and 2014.
• Why does the second table have "Congolese (DRC)" while the accompanying text just has "Congolese"? If anything the text should have the additional explanations, as it does for "Burmese".
  • "DRC" added to text. Is there a better way to distinguish between the two Congos?
• "... the original 15 Congolese families in Norwich in 2006" seems to refer back to some earlier history that I can't find. And the reason for including the motorway crash needs to be clearer – was it linked to their status as refugees? or just an ironic commentary on notions of safety?
  • It's not meant to refer back. Does this wording work better? There's no particular reason for including the crash, other than that it made the news at a time when not much was written about the programme. Should I remove it?
• What is the "English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision"? Is this some specific programme in the UK? The link is to a generic English as a second language article.
  • The linked article (English as a second or foreign language) explains the term ESOL, but is it better without the jargon?
    • It's not the "ESOL" I didn't understand, it's the "provision". Maybe the link should be to English as a second or foreign language#British qualifications, but that explains things from the teacher qualification side of things. For refugees, many of whom are past secondary school age, what does "access to ... learning provision" mean? These are ESOL classes for everyone regardless of age? Who is providing the classes? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Evaluations" section doesn't have any findings after 2011. Have any been made?
  • Not many that I can find, but I have added some material from a 2013 evaluation.
• You say the programme enjoys cross-party support. Has the UKIP said anything about it?
  • Not that I know of. Should I clarify that this means major parties?
    • This piece sort of implies that the UKIP is against the programme, but doesn't explicitly state it. But yes, you should clarify which parties you mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the cites, most of the publishers have links (at least on first usage), but some don't, including The Daily Telegraph and Sheffield Telegraph. Any reason?
  • Links added.
• An old GAN comment: Still no dates on the Mandate Refugee Scheme. Even a rough idea would help.
  • I've not found any sources that state when this scheme started, but I'll keep looking.
• Sort of another old GAN comment: I'm still not clear on the public reaction to the programme, or is it sufficiently obscure that most of the public are not aware of it? You say in your nomination above that "The article is very topical in the current climate regarding migration to the UK" but the article doesn't reflect that it's getting a lot of public attention.
  • No, the Gateway Protection Programme is still not very well known. I think my point in the nomination was that resettlement in general is being discussed, in the context of Syria especially, but most of that discussion doesn't mention this programme.

Comments notwithstanding, this is a very good effort – FAC closers, keep it open a while longer – Wasted Time R (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very useful comments, Wasted Time R. I'll make some edits to the article in response to them over the next day or so. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've fixed a few minor issues and have a few queries above if you're willing to respond, Wasted Time R (or anyone else). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator: A few of the sources are referenced multiple times. Where these source have multiple pages (e.g. reference 1), do I need to employ a system to reference specific page numbers on each occasion that the source is cited? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This citing change looks good to me and my last couple of comments above have been resolved, so changing to 'Support'. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- the sole image appears appropriately licensed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that, Ian. There are some good images on Flickr that would be excellent for the article, but sadly none of them are available under an appropriate licence. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What remains outstanding before this review is complete? Is a source check required? Is anyone willing and able to do that? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.