Talk:Norman Baker

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. The article needs a proper
   infobox
   .
2. Image:NBakerMP.jpg requires a caption to place the picture in context. It should identify the picture (if possible) by subject, time and place. For example "Norman Barker at (place) in (year)" would be sufficient.
3. The above goes for Image:Strange Death David Kelly.jpg, except in this case it should be "The cover of..." whatever. Also, the image has a copyright tag but lacks a fair use rationale (see the tag for a link)
4. All one-two sentence paragraphs should be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they distract the reader and disrupt the flow. The prose as a whole seems a bit choppy to me, but I can't tell whether it's just the small paragraphs, or whether it's a bigger problem, so I'll get back to the prose choppiness issue once this concern is dealt with.
5. The lead needs to conform to
   WP:LEAD
   . Specifically, it must cover every major point/heading made in the body of the article. A reader should be able to walk away from having read only the lead with a general understanding of the article (though obviously not a detailed one)
6. One sentence cannot be its own Level 3 heading, therefore I suggest either expanding the "Personal life" section or merging it with "Early life" and calling it something else. Furthermore, the one sentence under that heading will require a citation.
7. "In the 2001-2005 Parliament, Baker was a Member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and was appointed as Shadow Environment Secretary in 2002, a post he held until his resignation in 2006 following the election of Sir Menzies Campbell as party leader." (Front bench career) requires a citation.
8. ""brought forward in this Parliament so that annual cuts in carbon dioxide emissions of 3 per cent can be delivered in a framework that includes regular reporting and new scrutiny and corrective processes"" (Front bench career) As this is a direct quote, it requires a citation immediately following the quotation marks, even if it is the same citation as the one at the end of the sentence.
9. "Kelly's discussion with BBC Today programme journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapon of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq inadvertently caused a major political scandal. Kelly had been found dead days after appearing before the Parliamentary committee investigating a political scandal arising from a discussion with Today Programme journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq." (David Kelly) requires a citation.
10. Under "David Kelly," why is the word "David" placed between Refs #32 and #33?
11. The "Censure" section doesn't make any sense to me; it may require a little more expansion/explanation.

To allow for changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. I will return once the above has been addressed to review the prose to see if the choppiness has improved and to check the references. Cheers, CP 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, since these points have not been addressed within the limit of the hold, I will be failing the article at this time. Once the above concerns have been addressed, it may be

WP:GAR. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Late in the game, sorry, but I think I've addressed the infobox issue! Biscit (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really need to be so big and in a separate section? The censure was marginal and concerned a minor local leaflet. This section gives disproportionate importance to the episode and still does not coherently explain what Mr. Baker did wrong. Mr. Baker was criticised by the Committee on Standards and Privileges for having a party political advertisement in a publication which had been partly funded from the newly-introduced Communication Allowance. This allowance has recently been introduced to promote understanding of Parliament in an unpartisan manner. 217.171.129.73 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike statements like 'Baker is known for uncovering scandals and conflicts of interest among MPs and the government, and has one of the highest profiles of any backbench MP.' and 'A dogged investigator'. This seems like opinion, not a NPOV and almost as if someone is trying to promote him.

Thoughts? --Computerjoe's talk 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Baker. 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/20071224022437/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3081832.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3081832.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]