Wikipedia:Peer review/Liz Truss/archive1

Liz Truss

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like feedback. I'm aware that there are some "cite web" templates and overly generous wikilinking in some of the refs, but I'll tie up all those odds and ends over the next few weeks. Don't pull any punches; I'd like this to be an FA in the near future, and if there's something wrong with the prose or referencing, don't hesitate to say. Thanks, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CMD brief comments

The Early life and education interweaves the biographical details with hindsight statements on events that relate back to them. As this is early in the article, there is little context with which to understand these hindsight moments, so it would help if their timings and context was clarified. For example, "When Truss later stood for election to Parliament as a Conservative, her mother agreed to campaign with her, but her father declined to do so.[10][11] Her parents divorced in 2003.[3][12]" doesn't provide a date for the "later", and implies that the parents divorce was related to this political split (can't access the sources myself to check). The "she later said that at the school" doesn't provide the context that the "later" was part of political campaigning, which seems very relevant to contextualise such a claim, especially as the later "Truss praised the Canadian curriculum and the attitude" comparison appears to be from a 2012 source and thus a very different context (I'm assuming; again I can't access the source but it would be good if this was clarified either way).

The "her first year...in 1995" structure is nice variation but cannot be fully understood as there is no specificity anywhere as to which year her first year was, perhaps it could be added in the acceptance sentence? Similarly, "her last year...By 1996" comes without an understanding of when her last year was.

The "turnip taliban" header is not really explained, even in the single paragraph it only says the name was attributed and simply links turnip and Taliban, which does not elucidate on the matter. If it's important enough to be a header, there should be far more explanation.

Jumping to the "Political positions" section, I'm surprised there isn't an overall summary of her politics before the specifics. No overarching philosophy (or perhaps any source calling out a lack of such)? It's also a fascinatingly small subsection on "Economics", considering that is effectively what brought down her premiership. Some general bulking up here would be useful, and the article is quite concise so I don't think there's much immediate risk of overlengthening. As a final brief note, there is a huge reliance on Cole & Heale 2022 (97 out of 249 citations). Obviously this is a current topic whose major events are quite recent, so I'm not sure what the wider state of sourcing is, but this might be picked up on in reviews. CMD (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis - Alright. Will try to action your comments; just one point on the Cole–Heale refs: Johnbod pointed out to me that Truss's memoirs are in the works, and that I should take caution when nominating, knowing that I would have to update the article when new sources become available. For now, the C&H book is the relevant literature; the authors interviewed Truss and her friends and colleagues, including her classmates, her SPADs, her bosses and her parliamentary rivals, making it the highest-quality and most comprehensive source available. A lot of the SFNs back up things about Truss's personal life that wouldn't necessarily be published on the news, or on things the press just didn't report on. Contrast that to the section on her premiership, the most public and reported-on event in Truss's life, which is almost all newspaper references. If you still think that the book refs are excessive, I'll try to swap some of them out. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article relies pretty heavily on news sources. Despite the relative recency of Truss' premiership, there have been scholarly articles and other books that discuss her, so I'd expect this to be raised as an issue at FAC. I'd suggest either adding more such sources, or at least being prepared for how you might address this concern

The other issue that stands out is organization. You've got a lot of one-paragraph subsections, which should generally be avoided, and also some layout issues (sandwiching, header displacement). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get round to organisation in due course, but what scholary articles are there that discuss her? Not trying to be confrontational here, asking a genuine question. Google Scholar just turns up things written by journos in the wake of the mini-budget. There are other books that have her as a character, yes, like The Fall of Boris Johnson and The Conservative Party After Brexit, but none of them, I think, will offer anything like as much as Cole and Heale. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria - I think I've addressed everything you said, bar the sources. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

To be clear, I'm not saying you need to use all of these - just demonstrating the existence of such sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria - I'll see what I can do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria - Right. I've chosen the four most relevant and useful references you provided and incorporated them into the article. Do you think this would be enough, or does more still need to be done? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be prepared to get this critique at FAC - it'll depend on who turns up. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria - Apologies for pinging you so much. I think I've done everything I can with the sources provided: I've included Allen, Marsh, Diamond, Hickson, Middleton and Worthy. Now that those sources are incorporated within the article, and have replaced some of the news references, would FAC coords still flag the news sources as an issue, or would they be satisfied with the variation? I know I've asked the question yesterday, but I've since replaced 17 news refs with your proposed sources, and I don't see what more there is to be done with the sources currently available; in due course, there will be more analysis of her premiership, but right now it's pretty thin. Thanks for your comments, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your chances are better now, but it could still come up depending on the reviewers. The relevant FA criterion is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"; think about what you would say about the thoroughness of your survey, eg what sort of searching you've done for sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings

Pinging the FAC coords in case there's anything they should wish to add to get the article ready: Gog the Mild, Hog Farm, Buidhe and Ian Rose. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm not sure of the value of FAC for an article that is likely to need a sourcing overhaul in the next few years to continue to meet the criteria. However, that's only my personal opinion. About the article, I'm a bit confused why the minibudget doesn't get a dedicated section and a lead mention as it was a big factor that led to her resignation (as stated in this source, which you don't cite.) Instead of "the package was to be funded by borrowing", I would say instead that it was temporary spending and permanent tax cuts because that was a big reason why the markets didn't react well to it. The permanence or temporary aspect is not currently clear at all. [14] (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Buidhe's concern about the likely need to re-source the article but that would not be actionable at FAC. My primary questions is if the fairly brief political positions section is actually comprehensive for a national-level political figure. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I think I've addressed your concerns about the mini-budget section, and I've added both the sources you provided. @Hog Farm, I feel like the political positions section is enough: it sums her up in a few sentences, without being overly detailed, and, as her policies and self-confessed "libertarian" views are in the main body of the article, I didn't want to repeat anything too much. As for myself, I feel like these sorts of "views" sections can border into trivia very easily, with editors tempted to turn them into lists: "In 2021, Truss said [this], but in 2022, she changed her mind and said [this]", etc. To both of you, I say this: when new sources come into being, like her memoirs or new biographies, I will incorporate them into the article, rewriting sections if necessary. I have (now) done this with Out of the Blue, so it's no issue to do so again. If this article achieves FA (which is not guaranteed as of now), and if I don't incorporate the sources? By all means, demote the article. Thank you both for your helpful comments, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Detailed comments to follow, but after a first canter through looking for typos and suchlike:

Julian Glover quote: CNN may have used American spelling but you can bet your boots that Glover didn't. It looks most peculiar.
Paterson was dismissed partially due to his his plans: quite apart from the overdose of pronouns this is not a good sentence. Partially is not the same as partly and due to is not good English when used as here: "owing to" or better "because of" is wanted in formal BrE. It isn't the only AmE/tabloid "due to" I spotted in the article.
Truss ... published her resignation honours list in 2023: this reads as though the honours were a fait accompli, but at the moment they have not been approved (have they? Or have I been asleep?) Presumably Fishi Sunak will have to approve or spike them, and that should be made clear.

More anon. Tim riley talk 15:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley - still here? :–) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look in tomorrow. Meanwhile, have you seen this in The Guardian today? Tim riley talk 19:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Tim. No, I hadn't seen. I've not looked at the news today; I'm still reeling from the fact that Grant Shapps has his finger on the button. Will take a look, it might be a good reference for the article (although I don't want to be chastised for using another news source). Thanks, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with quoting respectable papers such as The Guardian. If you must aim at FAC now you can't wait for a book on the subject. (And if you did, who would the author be: Nadine Dorries? God bless and save us!) Tim riley talk 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments from Tim

Looks to me as good an overview as we could have so soon after Truss became undone. No quibbles about the balance or the sourcing; the prose, a couple of nagging points apart, is consistently readable.

My main problem with the prose is that it is riddled with false titles, such as "resignation of party leader William Hague, Truss supported former defence secretary Michael Portillo". The New York Times rightly dismisses the false title – or if you want to be posh the anarthrous nominal premodifier – as an "unnatural journalistic mannerism". The Sun and the other British redtops go in for it, but Wikipedia should stick to the King's English (for BrE articles, I mean, of course: what writers in Amerenglish etc do is none of my business).

Capitalisation: I don't propose to risk what remains of my sanity by going into capitalisation, but I'm blest if I see why Prime Minister is denied its capitals but a tuppenny-ha'penny policy such as an energy price guarantee is grandly capitalised. But this is hardly a matter for controversy and I doubt it will be raised at FAC.

The only other thing I slightly boggle at is "Hunt was jokingly described as the de facto prime minister" – I'm not at all sure the adverb is justified. The description didn't strike me at the time as an attempt at humour, but rather as describing the reality. (And does the Latin phrase need a language tag? I'm fairly hazy about such things.)

I wonder if it would put the two premierships helpfully into context to mention that Canning's ended because he died rather than being thrown out? Just a thought.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 17:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Will action your comments soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

Thanks to all contributors: Chipmunkdavis, Nikkimaria, Buidhe, Hog Farm and Tim riley. I intend to give the article one final polish tomorrow and then, hopefully, nominate it. Apologies for the truncated nature of the PR; rather shorter than I would have liked, but them's the breaks. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]