Talk:Political party/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 22:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel bad that you've been waiting since February to see this article through to GA. It may take a moment for me to finish leaving comments, as the article is quite long, but feel free to work alongside me. — GhostRiver 22:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lede

• Single-party state is linked multiple times

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Move the third sentence of the second paragraph up so that you have "major part of politics in every country" → "rare to have none" → "can range from one to several" → "democracies have more"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Definition

• Comma after "focused on electing candidates"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Part of this section reads as an extension of the lede, or as an abstract: the last paragraph can be cut entirely, as it is adequately explained later, while the third paragraph (a single sentence) can be moved to the end of the first paragraph. That way, you have one paragraph on the simple definition, followed by one on differentiation

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

History

• "in the Republic" → "in the Republic"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "in the Politics" → "in the Politics"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Populares and Optimates factions"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a much lower level of competitiveness" → "a much lower level of competition"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

18th century

• "At the end of the late 18th century" → "At the end of the century" to limit redundancy; we already know we're in the 18th, and the end of the century is always late in that period

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

19th century

• Replace hyphen with en dash for "liberal-conservative divide"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Expand on second paragraph, which right now feels disjointed; there's one sentence about the US and one about Ireland

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

20th century

• "many newly sovereign countries outside of Europe and North America" to signal a shift from the regions we've been discussing up until this point

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Last sentence of the second paragraph requires a citation

 Done, I just dropped this sentence, which was redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph anyhow; I think it may have originally been cited to a deprecated source that someone removed. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Why political parties exist

• The header feels more akin to an academic essay than to a Wikipedia article; I would suggest a simpler title like "Causes", "Rationale", or even "Mechanisms"

Causes

 Done, is it better now? - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is the first mention of autocracy, and that merits a wikilink

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Social cleavages

• "explanations for why political parties exist" → "explanations for the existence of political parties"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "unless it also explains where social cleavages come from" → "unless it also explains the origins of these social cleavages"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• The final sentence feels out of place, as if it is meant to lead into a lengthier explanation of social cleavage, which diverges too far from the original topic

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Individual and group incentives

• "So political parties can be mechanisms" → "Thus, political parties can be mechanisms"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This might help explain the ubiquity of parties because, if a group" → "This might help explain the ubiquity of parties: if a group"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Parties as heuristics

• with much less mental effort than what?

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Structure of political parties

Party leaders

• "who is" → "who serves as"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Should probably link president and prime minister

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "they affect how voters perceive the entire political party," → "that they affect voters' perceptions of the entire party"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "across parties and across countries"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Party executives

• Good

Party membership

• "affiliate with a specific political party"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific on which countries are experiencing decline? I see that the linked source refers to Europe in particular

 Done, yeah I think this literature is all about Europe - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Types of party organizations

• Link "primaries" to primary election

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cadre parties

• End sentence after "universal suffrage" to break up the flow

 Done, I deleted the rest of that sentence. It's one of the few things in this page that I didn't write (nearly all of the "types of party organizations" section was contributed by an unusually productive student editor in a wiki course actually, and it's basically the only thing I didn't throw out when I boldly rewrote the page), and looking at it now I can't really understand what it was trying to say - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• The earliest parties, such as the early American political parties, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, are classified as cadre parties. Current phrasing implies that the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists are distinct from early American political parties

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mass parties

• "previously not been represented" → "not previously been represented" OR "not been previously represented"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Catch-all parties

• "The term "Catch-all party"" → "The term "catch-all party""

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cartel parties

• Comma after "Richard Katz and Peter Mair"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link "cartel" in the phrase "forming a cartel of established parties"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Niche parties

• "in turn emphasising issues"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Entrepreneurial parties

• I do not like that this section is only one sentence while the rest are a full paragraph. I'm sure you can easily draw on information in the Entrepreneurial party article to add 2-3 more sentences on the matter.

 Done, I think this is actually a nice spot for a modified version of the material that got kicked out of the first section for being repetitive with the lede. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Party positions and ideologies

Ideological roles and types

• "send signals about what sort of policies" → "send signals about the types of policies"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• No comma needed after "to advance an ideology"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-ideological parties

• Good

Party systems

• "are how many parties there are" → "are the number of parties"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "like how democratic it is" → "such as how democratic it is"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-partisan systems

• Last two sentences of the first paragraph require citations

 Done, I think these were added by somebody somewhere along the way and I don't think they were very accurate or useful, though if you prefer me to restore them and try to find backup for the claims I can do that - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "or that have experienced

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "it is also possible (though rare) for countries" → "it is also possible – albeit rare – for countries"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

One-party systems

• Governments typically control the mechanism by which elections are conducted, as well as police and regulatory bureaucracies Muddled phrasing; I initially read this as "governments can also police and regulate bureaucracies" rather than seeing the police as a noun

 Done, I must have missed it on my watchlist when someone added it because I would reverted it as failing WP:V. It's not just muddled phrasing, it didn't make any sense at all frankly. People in general have a lot of opinions about party systems and these sections are a magnet for unsourced POVs. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In countries without a strong opposition party or independent judiciary or election commission," → "In countries without a strong opposition party, independent judiciary, or election commission,"

 Done, see above - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Two-party systems

• where the national government is exclusively controlled by either the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This is phrased in a way that is untrue, given how frequent it is in US history that the executive and legislative branches of the government are controlled by different parties

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "It is also possible for authoritarian countries, and not just democracies, to have two-party systems." → "Two-party systems are not limited to democracies; they may be present in authoritarian regimes as well."

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• This section as a whole needs to be bulked up more; every paragraph introduces an idea (authoritarian two-party systems, Duverger's law, criticism) that is not expounded upon

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Multi-party systems

• Last line of the first paragraph says "multiparty" without the hyphen, inconsistent with rest of article

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some muddled line of thinking here, where the last sentence is its own paragraph and not conjoined with the rest of teh thinking on the downsides of multi-party systems compared to smaller systems

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Funding

• "acquiring funds and allocating them" → "the acquisition and allocation of funds"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources of party funds

• "and about a third of them"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comma after "In some countries"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "depends on the size of that party, for example a country" → "depends on the size of that party: for example, a country"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Uses for party funds

• "for political parties to deploy money" → "in which political parties may deploy money"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link vote buying

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Once a party has spent more than a certain amount" → "Once a party has crossed a particular spending threshold"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Restrictions

• Fundraising and expenditures by political parties are regulated by governments, with regulations largely focusing on who can contribute money to parties, how parties' money can be spent, and how much of it can pass through the hands of a political party. Is this universal, as the sentence implies, or simply typical?

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Two main ways that regulations affect parties is" → "Two main ways in which regulations affect parties are"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than having a one-sentence paragraph, move the last sentence up so that the section is one paragraph

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Party colours and symbols

• "associate themselves with specific colours and symbols"

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link "illiterate" to Illiteracy

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "However, associations between colour and ideology are extremely inconsistent:" → "However, associations between colour and ideology can also be inconsistent" (You mention earlier that parties "will often use the same colours across different countries"; this suggests that it can differ, not that it necessarily does)

 Done - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Split the last sentence after "the more liberal Democratic Party" to better break up the flow

 Done, I remember someone added that uncited mention of the Canadian NDP and I don't think it's DUE, the American example has been covered in RS a lot (every election cycle every major US media outlet runs the same old explainer on why democrats are blue and republicans are red) so it does seem DUE, but we can't shoehorn in every party that doesn't fit the majority colour of its type of party - Astrophobe (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• All good!

General comments

• I do not see any issues with image licensing or with relevance. From an aesthetic perspective, you might consider left-aligning some of the images.

I think you're probably quite right about that, I was following the default advice in MOS:SANDWICH that "Most images should be on the right side of the page" but I can see that it might look appealing if some were on the left. I'm really terrible at that kind of thing, do you have any suggestions about images that might look better if they were left-aligned? - Astrophobe (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are (surprisingly, given the nature of the article) no stability concerns within the revision history.
• Earwig score turns up a likely mirror; no other obvious copyvio concerns

On the whole, I disagree with the original reviewer who wanted so much more. You are giving a general overview of a broad concept and do it well. I have noted several areas in which you may want to further elaborate on a point, as well as an area or two in which you may have strayed too far from the topic. My other broad mention is that most of this article is very Western-centric, and if there are opportunities to provide examples from countries outside of Europe or North America, I would encourage as such. As it stands, I am putting the article on hold; feel free to ping me if there are any questions, although be aware that I am on vacation through the weekend and will have limited laptop access. — GhostRiver 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this, and thank you for the really thorough and helpful review! I think this was a really marked improvement to the page and I'm so glad to have it finally no longer hanging over my head as one more looming task. I am really grateful to you for taking it on, especially after so many months. I also strongly agree with you about the undue western focus, and if you look at the history of my involvement with the article, that was actually my original motivation for overhauling the thing. My very first major diff on this article was 2 years ago when I objected to "such an incredibly in-depth discussion of the politics of one country": if you read the page at that time you'd think the study of parties was mostly a study of the difference between the Grenvillites and the Rockinghamites and how Charles Stewart Parnell did something that the Duke of Wellington didn't do, or whatever. I tried strenuously to get examples from around the world into the page, and I think the passing examples (if you just count up which countries are named how many times) are actually now quite varied. But there's a very deep structural challenge to this. Over the months it feels like most of the detailed discussions of the politics of other countries has been excised from the article because the only sufficient sourcing available is in deprecated sources, like predatory pay-to-publish academic journals. So if you look at the history of the page you'll see several examples of content about countries in Africa and South Asia having to be deleted because I was fairly sure it was true but I just couldn't find an RS to substantiate it. A particularly stark illustration of the same sort of problem is the ideology/colour table. I worked really hard to make those pictures super balanced, finding tons of awesome freely licensed images of Greenlandic environmental parties and Pakistani feminist parties and so on, but slowly over the months it has turned out that those images are systematically so much more likely to have been illegally uploaded to wikicommons with fake copyright information, and they keep getting deleted. So all this to say, I've tried really hard on this front and am frankly more or less out of ideas, but I'd be thrilled to keep working in that direction as much as available RSs and images allow. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for letting this linger for a couple of days; I was out of town for a music festival and just returned home. I think you've done a great job, and that any of the larger-scale global changes are far beyond the scope of a GA review, which should be a reasonable target. I'm very happy to pass this article now! — GhostRiver 19:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)