# Talk:Boston and Skegness

This seems to contain relatively little about the constituency and rather a lot about Ukip v Tory prospects for 2015 based partly on a non notable polling company. It seems an irrelevant combination of wp:crystal and wp:coatrack &  I intend to radically shorten the section. JRPG (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405045750/http://www.totalpolitics.com:80/history/149237/where-are-they-now-sir-richard-body.thtml to http://www.totalpolitics.com/history/149237/where-are-they-now-sir-richard-body.thtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PinkPanda272 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello N Oneemuss. I have read through the page and it looks well written and does not contain any obvious problems. I will start reviewing today, and hope to have it completed in the next 6-7 days. Please bear in mind that it may take a bit longer, as this is my first review. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Hi N Oneemuss, here is my review:
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
No issues here, spelling and grammar are good throughout, and the relevant MOS sections are followed well. I have fixed a few small punctuation errors myself.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Most sources are reliable and well referenced, the only exception being this one [1] from Lincolnshire Pride Magazine, the author's opinions seem to be fairly biased. The page scores 10.7% on the copyvio detector, nothing notable as the only matches are direct quotes.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I can't see any major content ommisions, summary style used well throughout (bar small problem descibed below).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
UKIP seems to have far more coverage in the lead section than the Conservatives, even though they have never won the seat. I understand the reasoning (referendum result, high vote shares etc), but I would suggest slimming it down to provide a more balanced view, as the details are already given in a later section. Everything else is portrayed neutrally and without bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Article is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images are freely licensed and well captioned. A picture of Skegness (if available) would be good as a counterpoint to the one of Boston, and an image of either/both of Matt Warman's predecessors would be good in the
Member of Parliament section.

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Well written article, references and content are all good. Just a few issues to fix, so I am putting it on hold for a week. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Issues to fix:

Change or remove Lincolnshire Pride reference
 Done
Condense UKIP coverage in main section
I've done some condensing. Not sure if it's enough though.
Looks good, I have condensed slightly more  Done
Add Skegness image if possible
Added. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice image, I have edited the caption as there is no context for the Clock Tower  Done
Repeat the explanatory note for Buckingham in the lead section
I removed the part about Buckingham as part of condensing UKIP coverage Username6892 14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe change 'promoted' for 'moved' in relation to Mark Simmonds' shadow ministerial positions, as he was still a Minister of State when he moved to the Health brief
 Done
Change '...anti-European Union UK Independence Party' to '...Eurosceptic UK Independence Party', makes more sense as that is where the link points to
 Done
Rephrase "...since legally all unprotected constituencies must have electorate size within 5% of the median electorate for unprotected British constituencies" doesn't read very well.
@PinkPanda272: "..must be within 5% of the median electorate size.." Does that read better?
Good start, I have condensed it slightly more  Done
The sentence about house prices  and wages in the Constituency Profile section is quite long and cumbersome, could do with spitting.
 Done
The graph at the top of the election section states that minor parties that never received more than 5% of the vote are omitted. The Green Party is included, even though they have never met this threshold?
 Removed I'd normally allow parties who run 2 elections in a row to be added if they get 2% in at least one, but the Greens didn't in this constituency. Username6892 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Good call, looks better now
I think all of the comments have been addressed now. Thank you for the review! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@N Oneemuss and Username6892: Interesting and well-written article, all errors have been promptly fixed, well done. I am now more than happy to promote this as a Good Article. I would also suggest nominating it for DYK to give the article more prominence, there are plenty of interesting facts to use. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The section ends with the 2019 general election. It could do with a further subsection that brings the history up to date to 2024 when Reform UK won the seat. I am aware it might be under preparation now.Cloptonson (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)