Talk:Competitive local elections held in England

Consider the review process

While the article is awaiting review, please consider clarifying which sources support which statements. You can do this using {{verify}} or hidden HTML comments. Per WN:Cite, only include sources that directly support facts in the article. If multiple sources confirm the same point, just one is sufficient (beyond the two required to support the focal event). —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4855230 [Not ready]

Revision 4855230 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I verified date of the elections and key news about the results. I haven't verified everything. I'm happy with neutrality. I am suggesting to add a table. How many seats which party before elections, and after. Just names of parties and their N1 before and N2 after. Maybe visual map could help time permitting. Further edits may be made within up to 24 hours from publishing including the time for reviewer to approve the edit. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Revision 4855230 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I verified date of the elections and key news about the results. I haven't verified everything. I'm happy with neutrality. I am suggesting to add a table. How many seats which party before elections, and after. Just names of parties and their N1 before and N2 after. Maybe visual map could help time permitting. Further edits may be made within up to 24 hours from publishing including the time for reviewer to approve the edit. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Review of revision 4855483 [Passed]

Revision 4855483 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Approving. Please refer to the comment above for feedback. (Sorry for double report, I didn't 'pass' properly on my first try.) Additionally, the following two sentences were flagged as plagiarism, please consider rewording them. The Conservatives lost more than 600 councillors and all 15 of the councils it controlled, in what was considered among the worst results in the party’s history. Nigel Farage hailed the results Thank you. 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 4855483 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Approving. Please refer to the comment above for feedback. (Sorry for double report, I didn't 'pass' properly on my first try.) Additionally, the following two sentences were flagged as plagiarism, please consider rewording them. The Conservatives lost more than 600 councillors and all 15 of the councils it controlled, in what was considered among the worst results in the party’s history. Nigel Farage hailed the results Thank you. 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.

Why are we knowingly publishing plagiarism and asking no one specific to consider fixing it after publication? Plagiarism violates policy and should not be knowingly published. The article also fails neutrality. It should not be published in this form. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision requested

Hi @Moondragon21 @Alextejthompson Hi @George Ho @Wikiwide @BigKrow @Lofi Gurl @Back ache @Md Mobashir Hossain @Almondo2025, @Dsuke1998AEOS, @Ternera, @Monsieur2137 @Asked42, @Sheminghui.WU, @excelblue (if you want yourself removed or someone else added to this list, please inquire here) A revision has been requested. Here is a list of what to do. (If/when you intend to start working on it, please leave a message or mark the article with {{editing}}) See below:

1) reword for plagiarism as noted above

2) add table or map summarizing the "seats before" and "seats after", as noted above

Thanks, -- Gryllida (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

3) The headline could do with some creativity and active voice. Please coordinate and reach consensus at talk page before renaming, as double redirects don't work, and this would be a post-publish rename. Gryllida (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added a map. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4855230 [Not ready]

Revision 4855230 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Copy and pasted content Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Unattributed, subjective judgements Style: Not ready: Sources should be listed newest to oldest Comments by reviewer: There are a couple of phrases that are identical to source material. Namely "...across England. Nigel Farage hailed the results...", "The Conservatives lost more than 600 councillors and all 15 of the councils it controlled...", and "...among the worst results in the party’s history."[1] In general, no more than three consecutive words can be identical to content from other sources. Please rephrase these sections. Some subjective or evaluative language should be either removed or attributed. For instance, "suffered historic losses" reflects an editorial judgment unless attributed to a source. See WN:NPOV (policy) and WN:Neutrality (essay). Please also list sources newest to oldest, and limit them to those used to directly support facts stated in the article, per WN:Style and WN:Source. Reviewers can often fix some of these issues during review, but it's much better when authors learn and apply these practices directly. Let us know if you have questions. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Revision 4855230 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Copy and pasted content Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Unattributed, subjective judgements Style: Not ready: Sources should be listed newest to oldest Comments by reviewer: There are a couple of phrases that are identical to source material. Namely "...across England. Nigel Farage hailed the results...", "The Conservatives lost more than 600 councillors and all 15 of the councils it controlled...", and "...among the worst results in the party’s history."[2] In general, no more than three consecutive words can be identical to content from other sources. Please rephrase these sections. Some subjective or evaluative language should be either removed or attributed. For instance, "suffered historic losses" reflects an editorial judgment unless attributed to a source. See WN:NPOV (policy) and WN:Neutrality (essay). Please also list sources newest to oldest, and limit them to those used to directly support facts stated in the article, per WN:Style and WN:Source. Reviewers can often fix some of these issues during review, but it's much better when authors learn and apply these practices directly. Let us know if you have questions. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

There was an edit conflict because I had not marked the article as under review. That said, I stand by the above assessment and believe the article is not ready for publication in its current form. I may have time later today to help address the noted issues, but if anyone else has the time, please feel free to make improvements. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Changes need to be reviewed and sighted

Gryllida, Bddpaux, RockerballAustralia, Heavy Water, I have made changes to the article that are important to be sighted before 12:56, 7 May 2025 (within 24 hours of publication). Namely:

1. Unsupported statements removed [3], [4]
2. Corrected biased/non-neutral statements [5], [6]

There were several other edits made to correct for the Style Guide.

I have concerns about the map added here. The only source cited by the map is another map by the same author, which itself lacks sourcing, making verification impossible (and images are considered content here). Neither this map nor the earlier version appear to be widely used on other Wikis. Additionally, the map does not indicate what the colors represent, so it's unclear how the description in our article was derived, and it cannot be verified from the original. I don't think the addition of the map should be approved.

I have sighted changes made that removed the plagiarism[7]. Thank you Moondragon21 for making those changes quickly. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, approved

sorry for my lapses in availability, have a few too many commitments this week. I needed to check in here around 12 hours ago too.

did not get what plagiarism was

did not get why sources needed to be altered

also is it "England" or "UK" elections (wp link says UK)

i will get back to read this in more detail when i am at laptop

looks like i did it at 23.5h mark - hope i made it

please let me know if any further questions

thanks @Michael.C.Wright and @Moondragon21

regards Gryllida (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that I approved the map. I umderstood the colors are in caption. Me thinks grey color means mostly same result. If map is wrong, I suggest to figure it out in longer term and add correction. Gryllida (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is there more that needs to be sighted her? And (highly personal thing, here -- so no need to flame me!) -- but: 'Nine' source articles for an article that teeters barely close to 200 words?! Why, for the love of Margaret?! 🤣--Bddpaux (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)