# Talk:Shabana Mahmood

Further sources: 
Birmingham Mail, Pink News, The Independent and The Guardian --62.232.163.210 (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jyeboah77:: I can’t find any reference to S Mahmood’s class of degree in the reference which you added. Please direct me to where this information is shown. Thank you.  Sweet6970 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Page 64 of Lincoln college records - S.Mahmood records a second class degree - https://archives.lincoln.ox.ac.uk/records/LC/P/R/1/80 Jyeboah77 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I still can’t find any reference to Shabana Mahmood in the link you have provided. In fact, I think that Mahmood’s class of degree is trivial information, which ought not to be included in this article, anyway. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Not too sure how you still can’t see what I’m citing even with the links and details. Trivial? Most leading politicians and (past and present) cabinet members have their degree titles, courses and (sometimes) grades - omitting this, when the evidence is in plain sight, is ridiculous & anti everything wiki stands for.  Jyeboah77 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I say second class which is incorrect. She achieved an upper second class.   Jyeboah77 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jyeboah77: This [1] is all I get when I search the ‘Archival record’. And p64 is about Rifle shooting and Squash [2]. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Sweet6970 the page numbered 64 is actually page 66 of the linked doc. The page is "Examination Results: Trinity Term 2002" and has "Mahmood, S  ..... 2.1". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
In the absence of any response, I am deleting this material. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shabana Mahmood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to review this. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose:
This fine article seems to almost meet the GA criteria. Just a few source issues to resolve.
References 4abc, 5, 10, 57, 60 are a self-published source, so we have to be careful WP:ABOUTSELF: 

4a and 5 seem innocent enough, but since we have 6, I would simply remove them.
4b says something about other people, so seems to be about third party people, although parents are really second party I guess. Better to replace with another source per WP:ABOUTSELF, or remove content.
4c it seems, could be replaced by 7, in combination with 8
10: do we need it, as there are 3 other refs here?
57: should be fine
60: this one feels too much supporting a claim about 3rd parties.
Spotcheck: 

61 59 54 46 31 19 all check out fine
Further comments:

opening sentence does not need a source
Between 2010 and 2024 she held various shadow cabinet--> because shadow is not a well-known concept outside of the UK, perhaps we could help the reader a bit by saying: Between 2010 and 2024, while the Labour Party was the Official Opposition, she held various shadow cabinet
constituency Labour Party (CLP) --> a bit odd to have an acronym but have the first word not capitalised
Mahmood served in a number of front bench positions under Ed Miliband's leadership, including Shadow --> as above, perhaps help the reader not familiar with details of shadow + I would add Labour lost
In October 2015,  --> could this sentence be integrated into the previous paragraph, put in chronological order, and maybe even start it with "The following month .." as to decrease the repetition of "In x 201y  "
second female Lord Chancellor --> would be good to add who was the first
On 12 July, --> Could this be merged with the first paragraph, and then simply say "A week later"
outside a branch of Sainsbury’s --> which town/city?
A report in the Jewish Chronicle says that --> present tense? next sentence is past tense again.
ref 23 needs a work= or publisher
the infobox has Majority	3,421 (9.3%) but the text a decreased share of 42.5%
Looks like the 9.3%  is the majority (3,421) as a percentage of the total votes cast. I couldn't see details on the template intructions so will look around to see if this is the right info to be displayed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems like that is it. See, for example, Birmingham_Ladywood_(UK_Parliament_constituency) and Rishi Sunak. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
it would be good to address somewhere the reason why her majority decreased so much
Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
She has spoken publicly about the recent riots, so perhaps something worth adding
Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
That is all I could see. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Edwininlondon. I'll go through your comments and also do my own review of changes since I nominated the article, which was before the 2024 election. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Edwininlondon I've now responded to all of your points. Please let me know if anything else is required. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
All fine. I made some minor edits, but this article now meets the GA criteria. I will promote. I will soon review another GAN of yours, Felicity Kendal. But perhaps you want to have a look at it yourself first, as it has been quite a few months since you nominated it. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dde0apb: Regarding your recent addition of material on Gaie Delap:
The sources do not say that GD was released under the early release programme, and the BBC source does not mention Mahmood at all. The Guardian source is an opinion piece, and so it is not a suitable source. So I am deleting your addition because it is not about the subject of this article, which is Shabana Mahmood, rather than GD, Just Stop Oil, electronic tags, or Serco. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand your observation about the Guardian piece being an opinion one.  There are other sources could be used instead. But if this information is not relevant here then neither are the preceding sentences which say "This included 37 who were not eligible for early release. At least one is suspected to have gone on to offend again."  Should those not also be removed? dde0apb (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Dde0apb: Regarding your edit summary Happy to be corrected but please explain why this is not relevant to the Justice Secretary's decision to release people to tagged custody I have explained this in my comment above.
Regarding the ‘37’ – this is relevant to the early release scheme – the source says: A man who is accused of committing a sexual offence within hours of being let out of prison under the government's early release scheme was freed in error, the BBC has been told. Amari Ward, 31, was one of 37 prisoners who should not have been eligible for the early release scheme because they had breached restraining orders.
So I do not think that the text about the ‘37’ should be deleted, but I do think, for the reasons I have previously given, that the text about Gaie Delap is not relevant to this article about Shabana Mahmood.  Please self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

An IP has added/reinstated a long ‘Controversies’ section. This is, in fact, a duplication of material which is already in the article, under the ‘Israel and Palestine’ and ‘LGBT issues’ subsections further up the page. My view is that the wording of the subsections is better than the ‘Controversies’ section, which is overlong. So I would delete the ‘Controversies’ section. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I have now deleted the duplicated material. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. In any case, a 'Controversies' section highlighting and collating all the negatives is deprecated by some WP:CSECTION. They are better in the relevant section(s). Jontel (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)