# Talk:Led By Donkeys

Seems odd if all the described disruptive action has passed without any charges brought against them.
Compare with similar green or other activism...without saying whether that's justified or not either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:B340:86:91D5:D4C4:F45F:4A13:5310 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 

This was not at Featured article review, it was at Featured article candidates.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
In early March 2020 this article was put up for review as a Featured Article Candidate. Here is a summary of the points the reviewers made and how I addressed them, before putting the article up for Good Article Nomination, as the reviewers suggested:

Sourcing: use of low quality sources
WP:RSP lists sources such as Metro as not reliable, according to consensus. For FAC, one reviewer said the tabloids are not acceptable, nor is the Huffington Post. Another reviewer mentioned the local publications Devon Live, The Birmingham Mail as not being of high enough quality for FAC.
My actions: 

- I replaced Metro, Evening Standard, Huffington Post with other sources
- I replaced those references to local publications with national, reliable ones where I could. I kept a few where there is no alternative, and these cases all have a local aspect. For instance, Birmingham Mail is used to report events in Birmingham. For GAN it is not a requirement that the sources are high quality. Neither Birmingham Mail, nor Wales Online are mentioned as not reliable on WP:RSP. No one so far has questioned the reliablity of these local publications on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (see this search here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns4=1&search=%2B%22birmingham+mail%22+reliable+sources+%2Bnoticeboard&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D. So for GAN it seems fine to keep the sources. If I'm wrong, we would have to remove the associated content, as there seems to be no other source.
Sourcing: anti-Brexit editorial lines
"Almost all the article's sources have anti-Brexit editorial line. That affects WP:NPOV"
As it happens the pro-Brexit media have only rarely mentioned Led By Donkeys. On top of that quite a few pro-Brexit sources are tabloids that can not be used. I have used this somewhat dated Oxford University study to check which source is anti or pro Brexit: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit, and glanced at the Huffington Post list on https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/which-newspapers-support-brexit_uk_5768fad2e4b0a4f99adc6525. There may be newer lists. The Telegraph seems the only pro-Brexit source in the UK that passes as reliable as per WP:RSP. 
My actions:

- I have added all occurrences of The Telegraph mentioning Led By Donkeys as source, taking the place of anti-Brexit sources. Still, that's only 4 times.
- I have added more foreign sources that seem neutral. So no EU sources, but Al Jazeera, CBS, NBC, Reuters, Yahoo News.
This of course only helps a bit. The only way to get equal number of pro and anti in the sources is to remove a lot of content. For GAN, and possibly, FAC, getting to equal numbers is not a goal we should try to achieve. We need to achieve neutral point of view. WP:NPOV talks about due weight. In an article about anti-Brexit group the reader would expect facts to be more reported by anti-Brexit sources. I believe for GAN the sourcing now is satisfactory on this point of WP:NPOV.

Sourcing: too reliant on primary source
There were 23 references to the book Led By Donkeys wrote themselves. Where a secondary source was available I replaced it.
There are now only 14 left. If needed for GAN, we could delete some content, but I do not think this is needed.

Prose: Neutral point of view
Despite my attempts to avoid them, a few statements had slipped through that did not meet the neutral point of view guidelines. The word "clearly" in the lead came from multiple sources, but I have now labelled any such cases with modifiers such as "according to the group". The other prose issues mentioned have also been fixed (e.g. unit clarifications, long sentences).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwininlondon (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled back the many changes of an IP editor who stated that "the previous version sounded like an SWP/anarchist activist's diary/blog", claiming that the Guardian, Independent and Evening Standard are not reliable sources. The statements in the article are clearly sourced, and the sources in question are well-known mainstream WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

An anonymous editor made a change [1] in the first sentence, changing "satire" into "quotes". I don't think this was an improvement, so I have changed it back. Humour is an important aspect in their work, according to the group themselves. The word "quotes" does not capture this. The word satire fits better, is of a higher abstraction level and is used by journalists to describe LBD. The anonymous editor defined satire as "Satire is use of comedy to convey a truth", which is not quite what my dictionary says, Collins: "the use of ridicule, irony, etc". Edwininlondon (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

LedByDonkeysTwitter.png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

While it is true that Led by Donkeys consists of Remainers, as I recall, the focus of their campaigning has never been opposition to Brexit as such. Rather it's opposed to, and highlights, the inconsistency and perceived hypocrisy and corruption of the Conservative government. It's thus rather facile to classify them in the infobox solely as an "anti-Brexit media campaign". Hairy Dude (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hard to tell, really, since their own website has zero content other than a subscribe button. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Even so, I'd argue that this group has become significantly less Brexit-focused as time has gone on. They now seemingly refer to themselves as a more general "accountability project".[2] As such, the lede may need a little more of a rejig at least. JamJamSvn (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, just not sure how. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Main text says the group was established in December 2018; infobox says 10 July 2019. Both appear to be correct (the first refers to its informal establishment; the second, based on Wikidata and in turn on Companies House info, to its formal registration as a company), but it's a bit confusing to the casual reader. Could be made clearer. GrindtXX (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)