In rather a large number of places (considering the length of the article), this presents analysis or opinion as objective fact. Either attribute analysis/opinion to someone within the story, or leave it out (this falls under our neutrality policy). Instances here:
Paragraph 2: "The vote was expected to pass" — if stated that way, the reader should want to know who did the expecting. This may lead to other questions such as why they expected it and how we know. Most likely one would change such a thing to say that somebody (attributed) said it was likely to happen, or to present some other evidence from which the reader could deduce the likelihood of passage.
Paragraph 3: "would see to [...]" — we can't know what her intent is. We can report that someone said that was her intent (such as if she said it), we can report that someone said that would be the effect (and let the reader assess intent).
Paragraph 3: "Scottish National Party, which anticipated a strong showing" — why would they anticipate that?
Paragraph 3: "overwhelmingly" — that's a subjective assessment. Stick to objective facts. Neutrality protects us from having to judge whether such a thing is true or not. This passage was, by the way, substantially copied from CNN; don't do that. See the advice at WN:PILLARS#own.
Paragraph 4: "The move was unexpected" — unexpected by whom? Some commentators say it was expected, which would equally beg the question expected by whom?
The outcome of today's vote should almost certainly be included when resubmitting, since it'll take some time to address the concerns above and, even if addressed almost instantly, and even if a reviewer jumped on the article immediately once resubmitted, the Wikimedia projects are going to be frozen for a while later today, creating further delays before review could realistically happen.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
In rather a large number of places (considering the length of the article), this presents analysis or opinion as objective fact. Either attribute analysis/opinion to someone within the story, or leave it out (this falls under our neutrality policy). Instances here:
Paragraph 2: "The vote was expected to pass" — if stated that way, the reader should want to know who did the expecting. This may lead to other questions such as why they expected it and how we know. Most likely one would change such a thing to say that somebody (attributed) said it was likely to happen, or to present some other evidence from which the reader could deduce the likelihood of passage.
Paragraph 3: "would see to [...]" — we can't know what her intent is. We can report that someone said that was her intent (such as if she said it), we can report that someone said that would be the effect (and let the reader assess intent).
Paragraph 3: "Scottish National Party, which anticipated a strong showing" — why would they anticipate that?
Paragraph 3: "overwhelmingly" — that's a subjective assessment. Stick to objective facts. Neutrality protects us from having to judge whether such a thing is true or not. This passage was, by the way, substantially copied from CNN; don't do that. See the advice at WN:PILLARS#own.
Paragraph 4: "The move was unexpected" — unexpected by whom? Some commentators say it was expected, which would equally beg the question expected by whom?
The outcome of today's vote should almost certainly be included when resubmitting, since it'll take some time to address the concerns above and, even if addressed almost instantly, and even if a reviewer jumped on the article immediately once resubmitted, the Wikimedia projects are going to be frozen for a while later today, creating further delays before review could realistically happen.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The neutrality concerns of the previous review were addressed intelligently and, for the most part, quite effectively; thank you.
I had some verification problems here.
I don't see anything in the sources about the outcome of today's vote. You must have gotten it from somewhere, which suggests that not all sources used are listed — unless you used Wikipedia, which cannot be used as a source (it's inherently not trust-worthy; either it cites a trust-worthy source that could be used, or it doesn't and its information is unsourced). That is, as noted, essential information, so simply cutting it out would not be an option even if it were the only problem spot in the article.
Citing BBC for the analysis is not something we like to do; analysis/opinion of a news org is generally to be avoided unless they actually become part of the news. Presenting facts and leaving the reader to draw conclusions is the way to go. In this case, I don't understand the point being presented, and it sounds kind of off to me from my understanding of the politics involved. I don't see how voting down the Scottish independence referendum would demonstrate discontent with the Conservatives; it's my impression that the Brexit vote has reenergized the Scottish independence movement.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The neutrality concerns of the previous review were addressed intelligently and, for the most part, quite effectively; thank you.
I had some verification problems here.
I don't see anything in the sources about the outcome of today's vote. You must have gotten it from somewhere, which suggests that not all sources used are listed — unless you used Wikipedia, which cannot be used as a source (it's inherently not trust-worthy; either it cites a trust-worthy source that could be used, or it doesn't and its information is unsourced). That is, as noted, essential information, so simply cutting it out would not be an option even if it were the only problem spot in the article.
Citing BBC for the analysis is not something we like to do; analysis/opinion of a news org is generally to be avoided unless they actually become part of the news. Presenting facts and leaving the reader to draw conclusions is the way to go. In this case, I don't understand the point being presented, and it sounds kind of off to me from my understanding of the politics involved. I don't see how voting down the Scottish independence referendum would demonstrate discontent with the Conservatives; it's my impression that the Brexit vote has reenergized the Scottish independence movement.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
