Talk:Boris Johnson elected Conservative leader, slated to be Britain's next Prime Minister
Neutrality[edit]
Beware of "is expected to", a passive-voice construction used to avoid saying who expects. --Pi zero (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I dropped "expected"; sources don't make clear who said she would. I assume it's just custom that the PM tenders resignation to the monarch, then the PM-elect gets to form a government. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Review of revision 4493112 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 4493112 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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. |
Revision 4493112 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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. |
Ambiguity[edit]
Rather, the King or Queen, currently Queen Elizabeth II, appoints the official leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament.
This can mean "the King or Queen appoints someone to be the leader of the party." Yes, from context the reader can figure it out, but I'm going to be bold and change this to something more like "Rather, the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is appointed Prime Minister by the King or Queen." If anyone has their heart set on active voice, go ahead; I'm not going to edit war over this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/4493104: I introduced the worse phrasing trying to tweak the wording away from the Parliament site, the active voice was just a side benefit of the wording change. Obviously though, I messed it up. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
HTML comments[edit]
@SVTCobra: I know the article is already published, but because of that the comments are no longer needed - no more source templates will be added. Why can't I remove the comments? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry. I did not look closely. It was a knee-jerk reaction. I saw a few hundred characters removed and the edit-summary, and it together triggered the idea that a quote or something was removed from the article. It was lazy and in error on my part. Sorry, --SVTCobra 04:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)