Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liz Truss/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 October 2023 [1].

Liz Truss

Nominator(s): Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Liz Truss, the shortest-serving prime minister of the United Kingdom so far, beginning her premiership exactly one year ago today. The article went through an immensely helpful peer review which closed yesterday, after I'd rewritten it from scratch in August. This is my first FAC, so apologies if anything has been done wrong; that's on me. BLP writing is tricky, and I think I've struck a decent balance between brevity and comprehensiveness, but I look forward to all your comments pointing out the contrary. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - Am I clear to add this to the image and source review requests page? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added it there for you - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Looks like you'll be closing this one. The image and source reviews are both completed, and I've gathered a healthy number of supports, so hopefully this one'll be a promotion. Could you hold off until 25 October, to allow for a few would-be-last-minute reviewers to comment, and—for purely superficial reasons—so that this article's candidacy can line up seamlessly with the one-year anniversary of the premiership? Then again, I'm not the one to tell you how to do your job: do as you wish. Thanks, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. If you ping me on the second half of the 24th to remind me, then assuming I have not already archived it I shall see what I can do. You sure that you wouldn't prefer the bragging rights of getting it promoted within a year, rather than on 366 days? (PS I assume you are aware that you have "Email me" switched off?) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either's fine, just neatness that it was nominated on 6 Sep, and, to the reviewers' credit, it's been timed pretty well to be the complete fifty days. Re bragging, the entire FAC community can joke that "this FAC lasted as long as she did *wink wink* *nudge nudge*". You're right that I've not connected my email to my WP account, just something I never thought to do. If you want, I'll drop a ping on Tuesday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild - Forgot to ping yesterday, sorry. Hopefully all is tied up now. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

When the nominator mentioned this overhaul, the much respected Johnbod expressed reservations about putting the article up so soon after the event. I take the point, but here we are and I think I must comment. I commented at PR and will have one last look before returning here in the next few days. Tim riley talk 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a last perusal – and it certainly will be a last perusal, as I have no wish to be reminded of this person ever again – I am happy to support the elevation of the article. I could do with fewer mugshots of Truss, but that's just my view. If the article is promoted it will need more vigilance than most in the months and years ahead, I think, to make sure it continues to reflect current developments and sources, but for now I am satisfied that it meets the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 16:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, for comments both here and at PR. As new sources are created and Truss's life progresses, I'll make sure that the article adequately reflects both. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

I know very little about British politics, so bear with me...

Lead

• "In 1996, she joined the Conservative Party." This isn't in the body, so is unsourced.

Last line of "Early life and education".

• "in the aftermath of the 2017 general election, was demoted to chief secretary to the Treasury." Subject missing. Consider splitting long sentence in two.

Done with a semicolon, let me know if this is still an issue.

• " Johnson, who had resigned in an earlier government crisis" In the crisis, or because of it? Just checking...

Because of it. Amended.

• " Her government then announced large-scale borrowing and tax cuts, which were widely criticised and largely reversed after financial instability; facing mounting criticism and loss of confidence in her leadership, Truss announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party." Consider splitting long sentence in two at the semicolon.

Done.

• "Sunak was elected unopposed as her successor, and succeeded her as prime minister." Drop the comma.

Done.

Early life and education

• Truss was known by her middle name Elizabeth Why the italics?

It's the done thing, is it not?

WP:WORDSASWORDS

, I think, is the relevant authority on this. Not exactly sure if this applies to names though.

• "the family moved to Paisley, Renfrewshire when Truss was four years old," Parenthetical comma after Renfrewshire

Done.

• "Truss praised the Canadian curriculum and the attitude that it was "really good to be top of the class", which she contrasted to her education at Roundhay." Can we be a bit more explicit about this? Roundhay did not value excellence? And was Truss near the top of her class?

I think Truss was slagging off Roundhay (aka lying to prove a point), and I think that, like all schools, it would have valued excellence. I'm on the fence about this one, but if you insist I could add something, although I don't know what it could be.

• "During her time as a Lib Dem, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy,[27][28] and campaigned against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994." You haven't defined the abbreviation Lib Dem, although it is fairly obvious; suggest not using it. And did Truss change her opinions on these matters?

Fixed re Lib Dem. Not sure about Truss's opinion on either in later life: if I were to speculate, I'd say that she would support the legalisation of cannabis because of her small-state credentials, but I've no idea. With the monarchy, who knows.

Professional career

• "From 1996 to 2000, Truss worked for Shell plc," She worked for Royal Dutch Shell plc; it changed its name in 2022. Do we really need the "plc"? And do we know what kind of work she did for them?

  Shell fixed. Source doesn't say what she did; quoting the source, it says: "Truss took her accountancy qualifications and moved into the spare room of a fellow Shell graduate". I guess that she was an accountant, but hard to be sure.

• "She co-authored The Value of Mathematics,[35] Fit for Purpose,[36] A New Level,[35] Back To Black,[37][38] and other reports." Citation required.

  Done.

• " having been introduced to the branch by her friend and future MP, Jackie Doyle-Price.[39][30] During this time, Truss met her future husband Hugh O'Leary at a reception at the Greenwich Conservative Association,[30] with whom she has two children: Frances (born 2006) and Liberty (born 2008)." Do we have to use "future" twice in as many sentences? And her children were with Hugh, not the Greenwich Conservative Association, right? And do we know the sex of her children?

  Fixed.

• "In January 2005, Sue Catling, the parliamentary candidate for the Calder Valley constituency, was forced to resign by the local Conservative Association after an affair with the association's chairman;[49] Catling claimed that the members of the party that had opposed her were sexist, saying that she was "accused of everything except murder and paedophilia"." Did the affair have anything to do with her resignation?

  Yes. Changed "and" to "because of".

• "Beginning in 2004, Truss embarked on an 18-month-long affair with the Conservative MP Mark Field" I take it that we are contrasting Sue with Liz here. Did Truss have any other affairs of note?

  No. The fact that Catling and Truss both had affairs is a coincidence, although the book does emphasis the ironic value of the two.

  I'm not familiar with British politics, but in Australia we had a politician called Gladys Berejiklian who had an affair with a another politician widely suspected to be a crook. She was a canny politician and realised that the media were far more interested in her sexual peccadillos than her ethical ones, so she went on shock-jock radio with salacious details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 'some in the association asking for a local candidate and saying that she had been "parachuted in"" Was she? Did the national organisation impose Truss on the local body?

  Not really. MPs in the UK are selected by members of the constituency (local) branch of the party from a shortlist of candidates which are drawn up, also by, I assume, the local branch (although not the members). The Taliban weren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

  In Australia it is not uncommon for parties to impose a candidate on the local branch ("parachuting in"). Our preferential voting system means that it is more important for a candidate to appeal to the electorate than the party faithful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Truss was elected as an MP in the 2010 general election, amongst other Conservatives;" There usually are more than one elected at each election I hear. (Where's EEng?)

• Awkward wording fixed. There may not be more that one Tory elected at the next election, the way they're handling the RAAC crisis.

• " the FEG" Define the abbrevoiation before you use it. Yes, I know. Do it anyway.
  MOS:ACRO1STUSE
  : "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page"

  Done.

• "the top rate of tax to 40 pence" I think you mean 40 pence in the quid?

  Yes, that's a UK-ism that we often do: say "45p" or "20p" for tax thresholds. Fixed.

• Link carbon tax

  Done.

• "Truss soon became well known amongst members of parliament in Norfolk for her frequent photo ops,[71] but was well-respected amongst Conservative MPs, who recognised her as dedicated and hard-working;[72] one of her staff members said that Truss's "attention to the local stuff was just superb". Since it is a staff member and not an MP, this is a non-sequitur. Start a new sentence instead of the semicolon.

  Done. More soon.

Ministerial career

• "Truss wrote a white paper—More Great Childcare[82]—which would increase the maximum number of children childminders could look after at a time, from three to four," It think that the paper would not do this, but the policy.

Clarified.

• he told Truss "this is my phone number" Colon after Truss

Done.

• Suggest splitting "the first paragraph of Environment secretary (2014–2016) at "During her two years in the department"

Done.

• "Truss made a speech in which she said "we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Dis-grace" Strange formatting here.

Hard to get across how she said it, which was the main reason she was mocked. The Times used "That. Is. A. Dis. grace" which would've looked even weirder. You can watch her say it here.

• " "in December, I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets". Um, China is the world's biggest producer of pork.

Take it up with The Truss.

• "in Australia she made unscripted comments on their free trade negotiations with the UK, both events to the dismay of Downing Street officials." The unscripted remarks or the free trade negotiations with Australia?

The remarks. Not sure if I can express that in the sentence though, I'd thought it was clear.

• " the NFU" Another abbreviation.

Fixed.

• "Downing Street expected her resignation, but Truss later privately decided against it." How is that even possible?

In the UK, Downing Street sometimes puts people on "resignation watch" if they're known to be disloyal or against a certain policy.

• "including Partygate, which resulted in he and the chancellor Rishi Sunak" "him"

Done.

• "DUP" this time you have to look under the link. (Doesn't mean a thing to me tho')

Fixed.

Premiership (September–October 2022)

• " and began to appoint her cabinet that day" Aren't ministers appointed by the King?

  Technically, but "recommended that the King appoint her cabinet" is a bit too literal.

  I would suggest "selected" instead of "appointed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hawkeye7 - done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and prompted a response from the Bank of England." Any idea what that was. (My guess: put their fingers in their ears and went ting-a-ling-a-loo.)

  Yes, quite a bit actually; didn't want to be unequal by picking and choosing their measures, so I've added a link.

• "Truss has supported Taiwan in the context of deteriorating cross-strait relations" I have no idea what this means

  Me neither. A third editor left this for you and I to figure out. Maybe the readers can crack that nut. Added a link.

• "condemned the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people as "genocide"." Hahaha. Takes the cake for lack of self-awareness.
• "she called Saudi Arabia an ally but said she was not "condoning" the country's policies." Any idea what policies? (Allying with the UK I presume.)

  Added, after looking at the source.

If you are trying to make her sound vacuous and guileless you have succeeded. (Nice touch: the images of her first and last speeches still wearing the same outfit.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Hawkeye7. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to support. One final note: Elgot, Jessica; O'Carroll, Lisa (10 May 2022) is not used in the article. Suggest deleting from the references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dammit. It should be; must have missed it. Will fix. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One additional suggestion: "the list of her resignation honours, which are yet to be approved" Suggest the judicious use of the {{as of}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't use the template as it requires the year, and putting "2023" twice in the same sentence would have destroyed the readability; put "as of September" instead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

More of a copyedit that should be easy to handle. The phrase "an idiot, full of sound and fury / Signifying nothing" comes to mind, but reliable sources (especially the book kind) seem to generally take a pretty dim view of the subject. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Truss was the parliamentary under-secretary of state for childcare and education from 2012 to 2014, before Cameron appointed her secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs in a cabinet reshuffle. The comma after "2014" is unneeded.

  Done

Early life

• She applied for Merton College, but was instead listed as a candidate for the all-women's St Hilda's College User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences: the comma here is unneeded.

  Done

• During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy, and campaigned against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The second comma here is unneeded. (The part after the ", and" is not a standalone sentence.

  Done

Political career

• During this time, Truss met her future husband Hugh O'Leary at a reception at the Greenwich Conservative Association, with whom she has two daughters: Frances (born 2006) and Liberty (born 2008). Did Liz have two daughters with the Greenwich Conservative Association? Restructure this sentence so the "with" clause comes directly after "Hugh O'Leary".

  Done

• Another book, Britannia Unchained was published in September 2012. Complete the appositive with a comma after "Unchained"

  Done

• Truss soon became well known amongst members of parliament in Norfolk for her frequent photo ops, but was well-respected amongst Conservative MPs, who recognised her as dedicated and hard-working. The comma after "ops" is unneeded.

  Fixed.

Ministerial career

• In September 2012, Truss was appointed as parliamentary under-secretary of state for education, and stepped back from the leadership of the FEG, with Kwarteng taking her place. Remove comma

  Done (I'm assuming you mean the second).

• the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg held a meeting with Truss, who told her that "some of this is fine", but the maximum childminder increase went "much too far", and advised her to revise the proposal
  • Reverse the order of Clegg and Truss before the first comma so that Truss isn't telling Truss something.
  • The last two commas need to go

  Done both.

• Truss also announced proposals to reform A-levels by concentrating exams at the end of two-year courses, and said that the UK should attempt to "out-educate" countries in Asia. Remove comma

  Done.

• Originally, Truss was to be made a minister of state, before Cameron changed his mind on the morning of the reshuffle Before comma

  Done.

• May's decision to appoint her was criticised by the minister of state for justice Edward Faulks who resigned from the government Add a comma after Faulks

  Done.

• she ruled herself out the day after May announced her resignation, and subsequently endorsed the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson Remove comma

  Done.

• it was thought she might have been appointed chancellor or business secretary, but was instead promoted to the position of secretary of state for international trade and president of the Board of Trade add "she" after "but" to keep the comma

  Done.

• On her first trip to the US, Truss met with her American counterpart Robert Lighthizer, where she gave a speech comma after counterpart, and is Lighthizer a place? ;)

  Fixed.

• Instead, she had focussed on joining the CPTPP Maybe split this long sentence after "and New Zealand"?

  Done.

• Truss became the second woman to occupy the office, and kept the post of equalities minister Remove comma

  Done.

• Reportedly a difficult meeting, Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person". Maybe The meeting was reportedly difficult; Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person".

  Done, I didn't like that sentence either.

• the plan was criticised by the European Commission, but was received well by the European Research Group and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party Remove comma

  Done.

• he decided against it, and instead selected Nadhim Zahawi as Sunak's replacement Remove comma

  Done.

• Johnson's premiership proved untenable however and, on 7 July, he announced try Johnson's premiership proved untenable, however, and on 7 July, he announced

  Done.

• She pledged to cut taxes if elected, and said she would "fight the election as a Conservative and govern as a Conservative", and that she would also take "immediate action to help people deal with the cost of living" Remove both commas and maybe change "and that she would also take" to just "and take"

  Done.

Premiership

• 6 September 2022, and began to select her cabinet ministers no need for this comma

  Fixed.

• the package was to be funded by borrowing, and was intended to stimulate growth Remove comma

  Done.

• replacing him with Jeremy Hunt on 14 October, who reversed many of the remaining policies announced in the mini-budget, leading to further instability; because of Truss's perceived weakness, Hunt was described as the de facto prime minister. Did 14 October reverse many of the policies or Jeremy Hunt? Consider changing "October, who" to "October. Hunt"

  Done.

• She was succeeded by Sunak as leader of the Conservative Party on 24 October, and advised the King to appoint him as the new prime minister on 25 October Remove the comma

  Done.

• Sunak went on to further reverse many of the economic measures she had made as prime minister, but retained Hunt as chancellor. Remove comma

  Done.

• Truss, who remains in the Commons as a backbencher, submitted the list of her resignation honours in 2023, which are yet to be approved Maybe Truss, who remains in the Commons as a backbencher, submitted in 2023, the list of her resignation honours, which are yet to be approved

  Done.

Political positions

• She has also suggested that the UK should not ignore the history of the British Empire, but should embrace the country's history "warts and all" Remove comma

  Done.

• She voted for gay marriage and has never voted against LGBT rights, but has moved to limit transgender rights Remove comma

  Done.

• Truss has supported Taiwan in the context of deteriorating cross-strait relations, but, citing precedent, said that she would not visit the island as prime minister, and condemned the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people as "genocide". Remove the commas after "relations" and "minister"

  Done.

@Sammi Brie - Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie - Anything else? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will support. The copy has been cleaned up. (Note: Claiming for WikiCup points.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UndercoverClassicist

Much admiration for taking on a big, visible and no doubt high-maintenance article, though I'm not sure I'll thank you for digging up the memories of its subject. I'm afraid there's quite a lot here, partly because of the nature of the article: it's important that we get this sort of thing right and are seen to do so, particularly from an NPOV... PoV. Please do not take that as any sort of judgement on the quality of the article or your work: there's most definitely a path to Support for me here and I'm happy to work with you on the points below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim comment (separated for readability)

Christ, this is a lot. I'll do some tonight, some tomorrow. Watch this space. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist - At long last, I think I'm done with your comments. I've not responded to each one individually, so this is a catch-all reply to acknowledge that I've seen and actioned them. Have a look to see if there's anything I've missed or anything you're not satisfied with. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist? - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all handled and a well-worked article on a demanding subject. Thank you, Tim, for your forbearance with a lengthy and often nit-picky review. I think it's important that we get it right when do these "big" articles, especially BLP ones, and this one is a credit to the encyclopaedia and its nominator. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, both for the massive chunk of your time you've put into this, finding new sources for your comments and finally for the support. That's the level of FAC commentary we should be aspiring to. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

• Would delete to her dismay: it's unnecessarily psychoanalytical for an encyclopaedia, and it's better to show that she was unhappy with this through her complaint than to tell the reader that it was so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• During a previous unsuccessful bid for the LDYS executive, the party's leader, Paddy Ashdown, said Truss was "a good debater and is utterly fearless: could do with a slight rephrase to be clear that Ashdown wasn't standing for the LDYS. Was he endorsing her at the time?

  Fixed.

• Do we know when that bid was? If so, would put this quotation there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, source neglects to mention. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Another point, but comma off unsuccessful: she only had one unsuccessful bid. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional career

I'm not sure about the political/professional division here. Politics is a profession and she is certainly a professional politician; conversely, her time at Reform is hard to describe as totally outside her political activity. Suggest renaming to "career", rolling the two sections together and moving the second into the appropriate chronological place.

• Suggest explaining the key arguments of at least some of her Reform publications.

  Will get back to you on this once I have a source that tells me.

That's all for tonight @UndercoverClassicist. Thanks for the comprehensive—and, from looking at 29,000 bytes added to my watchlist—stomach-churning review. Will address the rest tomorrow. Much appreciated, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work: mostly simply resolved, a few replies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political career

• the motion was put to the association, with both sides making their case in front of the members, : suggest cutting the second clause: this section is already pretty long for something that ultimately had little consequence, and we can generally take as read that people discuss motions before voting on them.

On the fence about this one, might look back later if you want to push it.

Happy to circle back. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerial career

• criticising regulations which she believed affected British people's lifestyles: this still needs a bit of work, I'm afraid: the issue clearly wasn't that they affected people's lives for the better. Nor did she, I suspect, say that regulation should not affect people's lives. Perhaps "arguing for reduced regulation in... [whatever it was]"?

Re "whatever it was": source doesn't say, merely that they are regulations which affect people's lives. That's it. Directly use Truss's quote, as, as ever with her, she cannot give a coherent speech to save her life and I cannot make sense of it without bordering on

OR

.

Hm - do we have the quotation in context? Could always go for "arguing for reduced regulation in the British economy" or similar, or "British life" if we think she's talking about smoking bans as well as food standards. I sympathise with the problem! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She's inconsistent about what it is she's attacking, but her main target looks like measures tackling obesity. Added another portion of her speech; not exactly jumping with joy at adding another quote though.

I would shed no tears over that quote if removed and paraphrased: unfortunately, Truss's incoherency rather infects the sentence it's been transplanted into. I don't think it would be OR to say that she was criticising government efforts to discourage unhealthy eating and alcohol consumption: it might be OR to say that she was opposing the "sugar tax" and minimum unit pricing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By the way, apologies for my reduced productivity in wiki-circles, had another busy spell last week. Will try to finish off your comments soon, as well as finishing my review of Temple of Apollo Palatinus. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On another note in the same section: quoting anonymous sources is a little dangerous, especially in a BLP context. Do we have anything other than the unnamed Treasury worker behind this idea - put another way, can we be sure that we're not simply repeating workplace bloviating or gossip?

That quote seems fine, as he (or she)'s just describing how Truss went about things. Shows really that Truss just could not understand she wasn't able to treat everything like student politics, which really came back to bite her last year.

It does, if it's legitimate: however, since it's anonymous, there's no guarantee that it really shows anything, as we have no way to verify that the source had any knowledge or indeed was anything more than a figment of Cole or Heale's imagination. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Err... I don't think Cole and Heale were fabricating a quote, or the person saying the quote, or lying about the position of the quotee-in-question for almost no reason. I believe it's genuine.

I've no reason to doubt their integrity either, but AGF doesn't really go too far where BLP is concerned (it wouldn't in a responsible newspaper, either): we need something a bit more like "trust, but verify". This isn't a deal-breaking point for me at the moment, but I'm going to leave it here and chew on it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dominic Cummings, Johnson's chief adviser, saying that Truss was "the only minister I shouted at in Number 10": I'm a bit uncomfortable taking Dominic 'Just Testing My Eyes' Cummings so uncritically at his word: he very much had an agenda in making this comment.

Changed it so Cummings' comment isn't treated as gospel.

This now takes us into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: we've gone too far the other way. Perhaps "later wrote that"? More generally, you could contextualise (perhaps citing this article? that Cummings was an opponent of Truss's later leadership campaign and made these comments during it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done re "claiming". Not sure about the latter: bit

synth-y

, is it not?

Yes, a bit, but any time we do anything other than blindly follow a single source, we're doing something synth-y. The question is whether we're making a conclusion that's not supported by the sources. Understand the concern here and I think your solution is a perfectly good one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May be a bit of a tangent. Happy to concede, should you ask again.

• Amid mounting pressure on Johnson in lieu of the Chris Pincher scandal: in lieu of means instead of: we mean in the wake of, but
  MOS:IDIOM
  would prefer following. Mounting pressure is a bit of a cliché and a bit journalistic, I think.

Fixed first, think the second is OK.

It's not a hard rule, but

MOS:CLICHE has Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. There's also Orwell's well-trodden dictum to never write a figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The pressure was mounting on Johnson, and there's no shame on Wikipedia for expressing that. Calling a spade a spade more often than not is a wise thing to do.

Well, in a literal sense, it wasn't: it remained approximately 1 atm almost wherever he went. The problem isn't with saying that Johnson was under increasing pressure, or that Johnson's approval rating was falling and he was losing the loyalty of his colleagues: it's with finding a direct way of saying so. However, with that said, it's a common phrase and not a make-or-break issue on its own. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• on 5 July Sunak and Javid resigned within minutes of each other, with Johnson again considering giving Truss the chancellorship; he decided against it and instead selected Nadhim Zahawi as Sunak's replacement: This blurs the chronology. Would split after other and then write another main clause: Johnson considered... but decided against it...

Done.

• it was a "matter of hours, not days": I'm not going to press for attribution here, as it's not important and probably not even a direct quote, but the it was is very much a
  MOS:IDIOM
  . Perhaps she was likely to survive "a matter of..."?

Done.

• was blamed for the pound falling to its lowest ever rate against the US dollar, (US$1.033): the comma is out of place here (should be after the brackets).

Comma removed (happened one year ago today too).

• The mini-budget was received badly by financial markets because of its inclusion of temporary spending measures whilst permanently cutting tax rates: we need this sentence to balance: we start with a noun phrase (its inclusion) and then go on to a participle one (permanently cutting...). Suggest "because it included [only?] temporary spending measures but permanently cut tax rates". Would then make a full stop and start a fresh sentence.

This is another sentence which has become a patchwork of multiple reviewers' ideas. Fixed.

• Spell out IMF.

Done.

• senior politicians Michael Gove and Grant Shapps: fix false title.

Fixed.

• the 45 per cent rate of tax : this is specifically income tax, isn't it?

Fixed.

• with her personal approval rating recorded as nine per cent: this links directly to one survey, and surveys are notorious for having a) a range and b) outliers. We should contextualise this statement more so that we're not putting more weight on the source than it can support.

Done.

Post-premiership

• Caps on "Prime Minister" (
  MOS:JOB
  ).

Isn't it the opposite? "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically [...]).

This is the wonderfully-worded exception: When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description. Essentially, when you're talking about kings, presidents or popes in the abstract, it's lower-case, but when you're talking about a specific person or the title itself, it's capitalised. The table below is probably the most helpful thing: we're in the territory of Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016, not Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom (notice the the). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know: "Queen" not "queen" when talking about Elizabeth II, etc. Still think that "Prime Minister" looks really strange. The MoS, as a whole, is a really strange diktat. However, I won't protest should you change it yourself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's quite a lot of these in the article: suggest giving it a good look through with that table in mind. The MoS may be a strange master but it is one of the FA criteria: I'm sympathetic to a

WP:IAR argument to break it if a specific situation dictates, but I'm not sure there's one here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think either we change all of them or none of them, not mix "prime minister" and "Prime Minister" for reasons too subtle for readers to understand. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS makes a definite distinction, even if it's a relatively subtle one. I don't think we can ignore a MoS standard because we think it's too complicated. There are plenty of other words (see king and god, off the top of my head) where we use variable capitalisation and doing otherwise would be jarring to readers. To me,

WP:IAR would need a rationale that applies specifically to this context: if the argument is that the MoS simply isn't right or simply isn't good, that discussion needs to be had beyond this article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If you really want to push this I'll do it, even though (I warn you) it's going to look pretty disgusting. Will go through it with the table. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist - Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really ugly one: I must admit I've got myself tied in some knots here. Part of the issue is the MoS phrasing a formal title for a specific entity: clearly, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is just that, but I'm not sure whether prime minister on its own clears the bar for formal (the FA Alec Douglas-Home thinks it does; the FA Richard Nixon does not). We then have e.g. Defence Secretary, which I'd argue is not the formal title (because the title Secretary of State for Defence exists), but then e.g. Minister for Equalities, which probably is the formal title because no 'proper' one exists. The one case it unambiguously needs to be capitalised is when someone is actually being addressed by the title, so I've put that one back into caps: happy to leave this where it is or for you to make a call on those questions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would discount the Disraeli and Douglas-Home articles, as they use "Prime Minister" willy-nilly anyway. I don't get why "deputy prime minister" has been capp'd, though: isn't the formal title "Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"? And then, when preceded by "the" or "a", "the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom"? And then, for example, "Hello, Deputy Prime Minister!" when referring to, say, Dowden? Think that one should be lowercased, anyway. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DPM was a mistake; I'd capitalised the titles in that paragraph, then had a second thought on the word formal, but missed that one. When preceded by the, should definitely be lowercase in most situations. Equally definitely uppercase when it's "Hello, Deputy Prime Minister", as it's then a substitute for someone's name and has become a proper noun. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rightie. Gone through the article again, thinking, for example, where I would apply "King" instead of "king": only found two examples: the Brady and Falconer quotes (Brady referring to Truss, Falconer referring to May). Otherwise, I think it's just too much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

• Since the referendum, Truss has supported Brexit; in 2017 she publicly stated that she had changed her mind: a little unclear: it sounds as if she has supported Brexit, but changed her mind (against Brexit) in 2017.

Fixed.

Not sure it is: it's now ungrammatical (since needs to be followed by a present-tense or stative-perfect verb). How about something like "since the referendum, she has supported Brexit, and publicly stated in 2017 that she had renounced her previous pro-EU beliefs"?

Done, but not with "she had renounced her previous pro-EU beliefs" - bit journo, I think, so just "changed her mind"; I think the reader can infer what she changed her mind on.

Notes, sources etc

• Some publication names are linked, others are not. In footnotes and bibliographies, the standard is for consistency: unlike in the body, we don't just link on first use.

Links added.

• Book titles should really be in title case, as we've done for Truss's own books in the body and bibliography.

Done.

SC

Putting down a marker for now - will wait until UC has done their usual excellent review. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) My turn now, I guess. I'll make a start now. Would be just too mean to throw in an oppose (even for a joke) at this stage...? - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been gone over in some detail by several reviewers, so unless I make it clear, the following are suggestions, rather than obstacles to my support

Lead

• "history of the United Kingdom": you've full named the UK, so you can have just UK here

Changed to "British history"

• "She remains in the House of Commons as a backbencher." I would add "As at 2023" at the beginning of this, just to help the readers

Done.

Early life

• "since early childhood": from, rather than since?

Fixed.

• "a Conservative in 2010, ...Her parents divorced in 2003. In 1977 Truss": this jumping around jars a little – you could move to a more chronological run without problems

Not sure here ... understand it's not chronological, but putting in, for example, her parents' 2003 divorce in the middle of "Career" (fka "Professional career") might stick out a bit. Happy to concede, should you ask again.

• It's "teenage rebellion" to go to Oxford, not Cambridge? And then she moans about ging to a college she didn't want? It's no bloody wonder I don't like or trust her!

I remember that during her campaign, people said we shouldn't have a PM whose name sounds like "mistrust" ... luckily, we didn't have her very long. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to trade secretary: will be back shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Finishing off:[reply]

International trade secretary

• "Truss's attempted US trade deal was accepted as futile": this is rather oddly worded – it suggests it the deal was accepted, but also says it was futile? Do you mean that Truss accepted her attempts for a new US trade deal were futile?

Fixed.

Foreign secretary

• "the move was despite, according to the historian Anthony Seldon, Johnson finding Truss "flaky"." I stumbled over this a little. It would be better having "according to the historian Anthony Seldon" after the "flaky"

Done.

• The Democratic Unionist Party is centre-right?? Its social and economic policies are not 'centrist' and I think just "right wing" would be more suitable

Our article variously describes them as right-wing and centre-right: chose centre-right as the milder term, but switched now. I know the DUP's a bit backwards on things like abortion and gay marriage, but also not big fans of the Tories either (eh, Theresa?).

Government crisis

• "he was described as the de facto prime minister": I think it's probably best to say who described him as such (I did read one description that said he was the adult brought in to clear up the mess made by naïve children, but didn't say he was a DF PM)

Done.

Political positions

• "Truss spoke against gender self-identification": was this also in 2021? If not, you may want to put a year on it, given the transitory nature of her views on many issues.

Yeah, 2021. On a related note, a French paper described her as "une girouette de fer", or "The Iron Weathercock". I was in France for a good portion of the 2022 leadership election, so that's a big part of what I remember from it. Watched quite a few of the debates and hustings too, madness how some thought she came across at all well.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers for the review. - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

I live in Australia, but spent much of the period that Truss was PM in the UK (on holiday) last year. I'd like to offer the following comments, focused mainly on the coverage of her period as PM:

• I don't think that two almost-identical photos of Truss are needed at the start of the 'Premiership (September–October 2022)' section. It is well known that she only lasted as PM for a few weeks, so obviously her appearance didn't change.

A different reviewer has said that the images were "a nice touch", and I agree, although it's not one of my inventions. I'd like to keep it.

None of the other articles on recent British PMs have this, and I don't understand the rationale here. Photo galleries are discouraged per

WP:GALLERY unless they're necessary, which I don't think is the case for this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, but no other recent prime minister has only lasted 49 days either. Forgive me, but I can't say with all honesty that I believe two images is excessive.

I don't see the logic here. The purpose of these images seems to be to mock the subject of the article: I'm shifting to oppose due to concerns over neutrality. I suspect it won't be a particularly long-lasting oppose, but I really disagree with this attitude in any articles, and especially a BLP. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Please note that it wasn't intended to mock anybody.

Thanks, I'm moving back to comments and will continue a full review. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

\*The para starting with 'As the leader of the Conservative Party' notes Truss' appointments of key ministers. My understanding is that these mainly came from the same wing of the Conservative Party, which attracted commentary and criticism (including that a lack of diversity and the 'best and brightest' contributed to poor decisions being made) - it would be good to note this alignment.

Alright, done.

• I'd suggest deleting the statement Truss made in response to the Queen's death. It doesn't really add anything, and may have been drafted years in advance as part of the extensive planning for this event.

It wasn't. Truss and her advisors wrote it in a hurry, and Truss was given some notes "written clearly in 1960".

• The material on the death of the Queen doesn't note the impact this had on Truss' agenda; the famous 'lettuce' article in The Economist noted that the period of mourning had meant that Truss was unable to do anything substantive for several weeks of her short period as PM. The lead notes this, but without supporting citations, so it should be briefly covered later in the article with references.

Done.

• "costing between 70 and £140 billion" - over what period (annually or two years?), and why was there such a huge difference in the estimates?

Two years: sources I have access to don't say about the latter.

The source cited [2] says that is the estimate made by some company. The mini-budget papers [3] put the cost at 31 Billion pounds in 2022-23, and state that it wasn't possible to provide a longer-term estimate at this time. I'd suggest revising the text here. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• "On 23 September, Kwarteng announced a controversial mini-budget" - the media coverage I've seen states that Truss was heavily involved in developing this set of policies; this should be briefly noted.

Done.

• "and prompted a response from the Bank of England" - what was this response? (the impact this had on people should also be noted; I remember seeing people lined up outside banks as mortgage rates were suddenly being hiked)

Was linked per above discussion, feel that anything more may be a little out of scope for the biography on Truss. If you insist, I'll try something, though.

My memory of the news reports at the time was it was the interest rate increases that were the main response, and basically destroyed Truss politically. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was more the parliamentary party which murdered her chances, rather than the angry hoi-polloi.

This comment hasn't been actioned. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now done.

• "The mini-budget was criticised by the IMF... ' - I'd suggest also noting the public's views, which as I understand it were highly negative from the get-go

I'd like to, but I cannot find a single good source discussing it: not in the sources section, not from a cursory Google search, not from anything. It all focusses on the reactions of markets and organisations like the IMF.

[4] looks useful, and other sources are discussed at September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget#Opinion polling Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I don't see where. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the public reaction was also broadly negative.[215][216][217]"

• Two sentences in a row with semi-colons in the 'Government crisis and resignation' section leads to somewhat breathless prose; I'd suggest tweaking here.

Done.

• The article notes that Truss ended up as the least popular PM - am I correct in thinking that she was unpopular with the public from the start of her term? I'd suggest adding a bit of text noting what the trend was.

Dunno, may be a bit non-neutral.

Why would that be non-neutral? There was quite a bit of discussion of this following the end of her prime ministership (e.g. that the Conservatives had picked an unpopular candidate, who then became even more unpopular). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that Sunak? "the Conservative Party faces a landslide defeat whether it picks Rishi Sunak or Boris Johnson as its next leader".

• My understanding is that Truss has rarely attended parliament since resigning as PM - I'd suggest noting this if it's correct. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, really having difficulty finding a source that discusses Truss's parliamentary attendance in any detail.

I think I saw a story in The Guardian recently saying she'd only attended parliament a handful of times, but I'm struggling to find it; I may be mistaken Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Chipping in): There is data on the votes she's attended and where she was absent here. Even though her appearances have been patchy at best, drawing any conclusions from it in the article would be OR. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D - Sorry for that. I've done some of the things you've said, but I apologise for the number of your comments I've not been able to execute. If you'd like to pursue anything further, go ahead; if you want to support, that'd be appreciated too, although I don't want to pressure you on either. Thanks for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D - I think I've done everything I can now; please check to see if I've missed anything. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few other comments:

• The forced sizing of a few images seems odd: why is File:Merton College, Oxford from Merton Field.jpg at less than normal size and some other images expanded above normal size?

Merton: done to avoid egregious sandwiching. Others to make the images more readable. Now standardised.

• Given this is a BLP of a fairly young ex-PM who remains in Parliament, a section on her post-prime minstership life and career seems in order, even though there's probably not much to note as yet.

Will do soon.

• Why did Truss' parents move to Warsaw in 1977? Was this due to their political beliefs, or some other reason?

Source doesn't say, sorry.

• "When Truss was 12 she and her family spent a year in Burnaby, British Columbia" - why did they move there?

Her father worked there.

• "A classmate recalled Truss as being "very smart" and that she was "confident, chatty, [and] tried to get to know everyone"" - not sure what the value of this is given it's one person's recollection (in 2022?) of Truss aged roughly 18 many years before

Removed.

• "she then complained to both colleges" - what did she complain about?

The she had been listed for St Hilda's. Clarified.

I'd suggest tweaking the wording here, as this remains unclear. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "In January 2008, after losing her first two elections..." this material would work better if moved after the material on these elctions

Will do tomorrow, as it is a fairly complex edit.

The edit hasn't improved things here - I'd suggest moving this to later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Truss unsuccessfully stood for election twice in Greenwich London Borough Council: for Vanbrugh ward in 1998 and Blackheath Westcombe in 2002" - were these positions the Conservatives had a realistic chance of winning? - particularly to put Alex Grant's comment in perspective. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, source gives absolutely no information on the Tories' chances.

Pinging Nick-D. Hopefully I can win you over soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

• "In January 2013, Truss wrote a white paper" - this would have been written by the relevant department(s), and then released on Truss' authority. White Papers are major projects for the civil service, and ministers rarely write anything personally.

You'd have thought, but apparently Truss did write it herself.

Is that in Cole & Heale 2022? None of the other sources say so. If Cole & Heale did say that, I'd suggest tweaking the wording here to note that she "personally wrote" the white paper or similar, as this really is extremely unusual. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D - Made it clear it was Truss who wrote it: "in which she [...]". Thanks for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The press, including Conservative-leaning papers..." this sentence is a bit complex and would work better as two sentences.

Done.

• "Truss was called into a meeting with the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg" - this makes it sound like she was added to the meeting after it commenced, which is a bit unusual (and would be quite embarrasing) for ministers: is this what the source says?

No. Amended.

• "Truss was later remarked" - the grammar is a bit off here. More broadly, I don't see the value of quoting the assessments of Truss' staff of her, as these are obviously non-neutral (e.g. the staff member would have been intimately involved in the work they're praising). Can experts or political correspondents assessments be noted instead?

Removed.

• "In March 2015 Truss was one of two cabinet ministers to vote against the government's proposal to mandate plain packaging for cigarettes" - did she do this as part of a parliamentary vote, or in the relevant Cabinet discussion? My understanding is that if it was the former she would have needed to resign given the principle of
  Cabinet solidarity
  .

According to Public Whip, it was a parliamentary vote: "11 Mar 2015, Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 ... Rebel"

British politics is wild: an Australian cabinet minister who did this would be sacked if they didn't resign first. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and blamed for their rising rates of violence..." - the grammar is a bit off here

Fixed.

• " them multiplication questions" - I suspect this should be "multiple questions", but a stronger term might be more appropriate (it's OK for ministers to question civil servants and their advice, but I presume that the issue here is that Truss was going over the top or generating low value work)

Ha, it really is "multiplication": Truss was very keen on quizzing employees on their maths.

• "in particular, she attacked colleagues who she said should realise "that it's not macho just to demand more money"..." this results in a very long and over-complex sentence which I had difficulty understanding

Trimmed.

• "; in Australia she made..." - this is a separate issue, so should be a separate sentence.

Done.

• "Truss continued her documentation of trips through her social media" - this is a bit clunky, and it's hardly unusual for politicians to aggressively use social media: was Truss really unusual in doing so?

Yeah, Britannica makes it very explicit, and so does her biography; before 2022, it's what she was best known for in the UK: being media-savvy.

Sure, but the wording remains clunky. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in: what about continued to document her trips through social media? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her early actions as foreign secretary..." - this sentence is over-long

Split up with semicolons.

Still too long. At very least split the bit about Estonia out into another sentence given it's on a somewhat different topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "became occupied with" - bit unclear

Fixed.

• "The meeting was reportedly difficult; Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person"" - this implies that the failure of the meeting was Truss' fault. It seems much more likely to have been Lavrov's fault given he was running interference for the war Russia was about to launch. Note that Lavrov has been targeted with sanctions by the UK and many other countries for his key role in the war.

Source says that Lavrov apparently wasn't that influential at all regarding the war: "Truss left with the impression Lavrov was actually isolated from Putin's decision making and was nothing more than a 'super-annuated spokesman' ... it was clear from that lunch he is not very influential, he wasn't one of the key instigators ... he didn't know what was planned ... he was clueless". Nevertheless, I've made Lavrov's botched communications clear too.

I still dislike this text. Lavrov is not a reliable source on anything, and the new text further blames Truss. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• When did truss get married? Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

Nick-D. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D - still here? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't had much Wikipedia time over the last week: I've replied above. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D - Done all, bar the election sentence. Can't think of a good way to integrate it into text further down: any suggestions? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not having separate 'Council candidatures' and ' Parliamentary candidatures' sections, but rather tweaking this into a single section on her candidacies before that in which she successfully entered parliament. This would solve a few problems with how the chronology is presented here, as it jumps around a bit. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support Nick-D: council and parliamentary candidature secs now merged in this FAC's 418th(!) answered request. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Andrew D.

There's a fundamental problem with this topic. FA requires topics to be reasonably complete and stable but the subject is still an active politician and so there is continuing fresh coverage of her activities and faction – see The Trussites are plotting their comeback, for example. Other politicians such as Churchill and Johnson have made comebacks and so it's not over until it's over. The result of next general election will be significant. And it will take even longer for the final verdict of history on her economic and other positions. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Chipping in) We already have FAs of living public figures - Bob Dylan, for instance. The stability requirement means that the article shouldn't be a work in progress and shouldn't be subject to edit wars, not that everything that is going to happen in relation to the topic has already happened. Otherwise, articles like History of evolutionary thought or Sustainable energy, about topics which are never going to "end" and are always likely to have updates and new developments, could never be FAs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I take your point but this topic still seems too much of a work-in-progress and hostage to fortune. Three examples:

1. The article's talk page explains that "This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
2. The article says "Truss ... submitted in 2023 the list of her resignation honours which as of September are yet to be approved."
3. She was in the news recently, announcing a forthcoming book, Ten Years To Save The West. This is planned to be published in April. The article says nothing about this and can't do much with it until it's published. Perhaps there will be big revelations or perhaps not. We will have to wait and see.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Andrew Davidson as it happens. The comparison with Bob Dylan is slightly disingenuous, as he is 82 years old and not particularly likely to accomplish anything encyclopaedic in the future (and in any case, Dylan was "promoted" in 2003 when candidates received no scrutiny whatsoever). Whereas Lizz Truss is a young woman and may achieve much in the future (presuming a lettuce doesn't get there first, of course). SN54129 11:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

Staking a claim. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Just a few comments:

• Truss was known by her middle name, Elizabeth, since early childhood with her father, a professor of pure mathematics at the University of Leeds, using it on a regular basis, which she preferred; after being given a badge with "Mary" on it on her first day of school, Truss had asked her teacher that it be changed. This sentence is (1) way too long, (2) has a few awkward constructions, and (3) has tense issues.

Fixed.

• In 1977 Truss and her parents moved to Warsaw, Poland

Done.

• the family moved to Paisley, Renfrewshire, in Scotland

Done.

• when Truss was four years old,. with Truss attendinged West Primary School.

Shortened, but not with a full stop as "Truss attended West Primary School." is a really stubby sentence.

• she later said in 2022 that at the school she "saw kids ... being let down", a claim which was criticised as inaccurate by former Roundhay pupils. "Let down" about what?

Clarified.

• the Labour peer George Robertson

I would, but I know Tim would be annoyed at me for introducing a false title. This goes for the other similar comments; apparently it's more AmE than BrE.

• where she advocated for greater effort on countering serious and organised crime Change "greater effort" to something like "more focus" (although I don't quite like that either; maybe you can come up with something better).

Done.

• She co-authored The Value of Mathematics ... Get rid of the Oxford comma before the last item in the list.

Done.

• After two failed attempts running for Greenwich London Borough Council This can be cut because that's already established in the paragraph.

Done.

• described as "Blitzkreig". How was it a Blitzkreig?

Clarified (with apologies to UndercoverClassicist).

• Shortly after her selection, some members of the constituency association objected to Truss's selection because of her failure to declare her affair with Field.

I'd rather not do this one, sentence becomes a bit stilted without.

• would later reach a high ranks in government.

Done.

• some of her earliest contributions to parliamentary discourse were on the subject of education. Move this before the sentence it currently follows.

Done.

• which proposed increasing the maximum number of children childminders could look after at a time from three to four, intended to as a means of reduce theing childcare costs

Done.

• met with the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg

See above.

• went "much too far", and advised

Done.

• angering Clegg, who then blocked the proposals

Done.

• approving planning for the Thames Tideway Tunnel, and development of Flood Re

Done.

• Truss lobbied the chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond

See above.

• lacked legal expertise, and called for her

Done.

• making decision-making processes first "making" should not be there.

Hangover from draftwork. Fixed.

• In June 2018 Truss gave a speech criticising the amount of regulations whichthat she believed affected British people's lifestyles

Done.

• {{sought the opinion amongstof her colleagues}}

Done.

• as a result, she became closer to her family. I would cut this.

You're not the first to ask. Done, reluctantly.

• CPTPP should be Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. Remove the Oxford comma at the end of the same sentence.

Done all three.

• the New Zealand deal was agreed to shortly thereafter

Done.

• for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Done.

• by the Eurosceptic European Research Group wikilink
  Eurosceptic
  .

Done.

• However, Johnson's premiership proved untenable however

Done (this is probably the most commented on sentence in the article: I think this is the fourth time now(!) ).

• It really bothers me that the Rs don't line up in her leadership logo. I know you can't fix that, but it's bad graphic design IMO.

If only that were the only thing wrong with her campaign.

• With the appointment of Kwarteng as chancellor of the Exchequer, James Cleverly as foreign secretary, and Suella Braverman as home secretary

Done.

• Robert Buckland as Wales secretary, and James Heappey

Done.

• in the anticipation of the Queen's death

Done, another draftwork hangover: used to be "in the event of".

• Britain is the great country it is today because of her. ...

Done.

• because of its inclusion of temporary spending measures while permanently cutting tax rates were permanently cut

Done.

• the US president Joe Biden

See above.

• I'm not really that keyed into British politics, but it seems to me that § Political positions should be significantly expanded, with an explanation of specific policies she has supported from her earlier times in office to the present, for it to be comprehensive.

Will do.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do in a few hours, unfortunately time got away from me this morning. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support on quality of prose, with the caveat that I believe that the "Political positions" section will likely need to be expanded for the article to be comprehensive; however, I don't know enough about British politics to weigh in on precisely what more is needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Political positions" now expanded, thanks for the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

As usual, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with adequate justification.

• The time-layout of the first lead paragraph is somewhat unintuitive; the second to fourth sentences proceed in reverse chronological order. If nothing else, I would personally combine the last two sentences: The member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk since 2010, Truss previously held ....

Done.

• Truss was known by her middle name, Elizabeth, since early childhood with her father, a professor of pure mathematics at the University of Leeds, using it on a regular basis, which she preferred; I'm not really one to talk, but even I think that there are too many commas here. Perhaps the father's job could be moved to his introduction in the first sentence of the section?

Ha, your comments overlap a bit with voorts. I made an attempt when addressing his comments: please say if it still needs to be changed.

• Perhaps join the first two paragraphs at the start of the "Career" section?

Done.

• Catling claimed that the members of the party that had opposed her were sexist and said that she was "accused of everything except murder and paedophilia" is this relevant?

Err, I think so. Provides some foreshadowing for what Truss is about to suffer.

• Truss, who was selected as the candidate for the seat, narrowly lost to the Labour incumbent after a Conservative campaign which The Yorkshire Post described as "Blitzkreig". Blitzkreig in what sense? My first thought was speedy, but how can a campaign be speedy? Maybe intelligent and taking the initiative, and not reliant on tanks/weirdly hostile to Poles and Belgians?

voorts overlap again. Now "active Conservative campaign".

• "shortly after the following year's election." Month?

Annoyingly the source doesn't say, possibly because Truss wasn't documenting her affair's chronology and these things tend to be a bit hazy.

• "promising potential candidates" fairly sure this is a tautology.

Fixed.

• The Daily Telegraph and The Times, were largely hostile to the plan. The former claimed that prices would not fall, with the Guardian columnist I would include the Telegraph's opinion on prices in the same sentence, and leave the Guardian's columnist to a separate sentence.

Added, and Guardian ref split off with semicolon.

• Sajid Javid is mentioned thrice in the article, all with his full name, but the latter without a link. Is that intentional?

Yeah, didn't want the link again and people might've forgotten who "Javid" is; nevertheless, two thirds of the "Sajid"s are now gone.

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the image choice and positioning a bit odd. There are two official portraits from three years apart in consecutive sections—it's a bit disconcerting, and IMO one of them should be removed. Then you have no images from either her opening or resignation speech—I would definitely expect the latter to be included as what she is primarily remembered for.
• "with the awkward, stilted delivery leading her to be mocked" is itself a bit awkward and stilted; I would suggest rephrasing.
• "The cuts negatively affected the prisons, being blamed for their rising rates" is also awkward. I would cut the "negatively affected bit" i.e. "the cuts were blamed for rising violence rates in prisons".

Honestly, this is an excellent article, so I feel I can support even without waiting for the amendments above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 - Done, barring one point: a different reviewer told me that the previous images of her first and last speeches were non-neutral, so I'd taken them out; feel free to ask if you'd like them in. The same reviewer asked me to remove the "upright" param in most of the images, which I've now restored to address your concerns over positioning. Fixed the other things you mentioned too. Thanks for the review and your support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could consider replacing the quote box (though the quote is fairly famous) with a non-portrait image such as File:Prime Minister Liz Truss announces her resignation.jpg - this is a striking photo, with similar versions being used by the news media (the fact that no-one had time to sweep the leaves in the background tells an interesting story by itself!). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review by RoySmith

• The first thing that strikes me is she smiled more when she held lower office :-)
• File:Official portrait of Liz Truss (cropped).jpg I'm not convinced this is properly licensed. The permission statement on commons says This image, originally posted to Flickr, is currently not available on Flickr under the license specified on this page. However, please see English: All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.. The image was downloaded from https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/52377585500, which states "Some rights reserved", which falls under the "except where otherwise stated" clause. That links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ which I don't believe is acceptable.

A different version appeared on the Main Page in the ITN section after she'd resigned. Must've gone through a check then, so I've replaced it with that version.

I assume you're talking about File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg. The commons page for that says it was downloaded from https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss, which doesn't currently have the photo. I tried looking in archive.org for snapshots from around the right time, but no better luck there. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I will state that trusting that ITN must've done a proper vetting job so we don't have to doesn't seem like a powerful argument. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, any reason why CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED isn't acceptable? We've followed everything there, i.e. we've attributed it and it's non-commercial. Looks above board to me.

The original image is licensed for non-commercial use, but our commons page asserts that it's under OGL 3.0, which allows commercial use. We can't re-license an image with fewer constraints than it originally had. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED also doesn't allow derivatives, so our crops are contrary to that license. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the photo back, hopefully fixed now with correct licensing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to change it back because the licensing was already correct. Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official portrait of Liz Truss.jpg. This work was previously nominated for deletion based on RoySmith's concerns but was kept. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely don't know what I need to do anymore. The change looked fine to me; would be a lot simpler if UGWA had uploaded it in the first place. If it's correct as is though, fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I feel your pain. It would seem that I accidentally stepped into a licensing minefield that I'm not really qualified to navigate, so I'll defer to people who understand this stuff better than I do. RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in - the OGL allows us to "adapt" the information, and cropping would certainly be covered by that: cropping an image is pretty universally held not to meet the standard of originality/creativity that would be required to create a new copyright, so any crop of an image is governed by the same copyright rules as the original. If we can show that the original image is covered by the OGL, we ought to be OK. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crop of the same image (facial expression is identical and earrings reflect in precisely the same way): theoretically, therefore, a crop of that one to Truss's face would be under the OGL. Technically speaking, ours is a crop of the "mother" image: again, technically speaking, the UK government don't have the right to release their own crop under OGL unless they also have the right to (and do simultaneously) release the original, since they are covered by the same copyright. There would seem to be at least an overwhelming presumption that the image we're using is OGL. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Elizabeth truss2014.jpg I'm unable to verify the license because the cited page does not have the image on it. I found a snapshot from 2014 of that page in archive.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20141110164640/https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss) but the image isn't the same.

It's a crop of the same image, surely that doesn't affect the license at all?

• File:Official portrait of Elizabeth Truss crop 2.jpg Much the same as the above; it's reasonable to AGF that this is an official portrait and covered by the PDS license but I can't verify that.

It is an official portrait, see this.

• File:Foreign Secretary Liz Truss visits Moscow Russia (51875320408).jpg This appears to have an acceptable license. I took the liberty of uploading a new version with the exposure adjusted.

Cheers.

• File:Prime Minister Liz Truss chairing the first meeting of her Cabinet.jpg As above, this was downloaded from twitter.com. It's reasonable to assume it's covered under the OGL 3.0 as asserted on the commons page, but I can't find anything that verifies that.

According to The Guardian, the photo was taken by Frank Augstein, and then published in the said tweet (or X?) by No. 10. Think that the license should cover that.

• File:President Joe Biden meets with United Kingdom Prime Minister Liz Truss.jpg Downloaded from twitter. Again, presumably a work of an employee of the federal goverment, but I don't see anything that verifies that.

Taken by Stefan Rousseau, who is not a US government employee. Replaced.

• OK, that's as far as I can get. I'm not an expert at these sorts of things, so it's possible I'm being unduly rigid on verifying the licenses. So, I'll just leave this here and let somebody with more experience give it another look. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• One more: File:Merton College, Oxford from Merton Field.jpg need alt text.

Done.

@RoySmith - Licensing alright now? Not to rush, just seeing if anything else needs done before you give the all-clear. Thanks for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I know this isn't what you want to hear, but as I said above a couple of times, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm going to leave this to somebody else who has a better understanding of both the licensing and what FA requries. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith - Ah right, thanks. Sorry, I didn't clock your above reply: my bad. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an update on this? Everything looks fixed, justified or explained over to me, and the licenses seem good and problem images replaced: User:Nikkimaria, I don't want to add to what I imagine to be a busy schedule, but can you have another look to see if this has now passed? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Official_portrait_of_Liz_Truss_(cropped).jpg: given the discussion above I'm confident enough this is okay to pass it, but I'd suggest documenting some of what was discussed on the image page for future reference. Similarly File:Elizabeth_truss2014.jpg

Not exactly sure how to do that, so I've given links to the discussions there. Feel free to change it if I've done it wrong.

• File:Official_portrait_of_Elizabeth_Truss_crop_2.jpg: source link is broken. Ditto File:Liz_For_Leader_logo.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switched out both for archive links.

Ping User:Nikkimaria. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: sorry to be pinging you as much as I have recently, this hopefully being the last time: I've done everything, I think, so could you, when you have time available, have a very last look over the images and give your stamp of approval (or not, if there are still issues)? Fingers crossed, we are within spitting distance of promotion. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear any changes have been made to File:Official_portrait_of_Elizabeth_Truss_crop_2.jpg? Once that's fixed this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sh*t! Did the other version of the similarly named File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg instead. My mistake, now fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Thebiguglyalien

I'll have the source review done within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books and journals:

• This article leans very heavily on Cole & Heale (2022). This is somewhat alleviated by the fact that some of its uses are coupled with other citations, but it's still quite a lot. Is this the only high quality biography of Truss that exists right now? I realize that this is a big ask, but I would strongly recommend finding another source, whether a book or a reasonably comprehensive journal article, that covers her life at least from 1975 to 2021 (you already have a good variety of sources for 2022, of course). Even without adding any info to the article, just another source for supporting citations to confirm some Cole & Heale statements would go a long way to strengthen this article's sourcing. Though if you do happen to see new info in another biography, all the better.

Is this the only high quality biography of Truss that exists right now? - yeah, sort of. Like others have said, will replace some sources when they become available. I note that 2 thirds of the article are non-Cole and Heale sources, which is a similar ratio to FA Neville Chamberlain, with 93 out of 248 refs going to Self 2006.

• I don't like that Fit for Purpose is only cited to itself. Is it due if no secondary sources have mentioned it?

I could do a secondary source, but it would probably be Cole and Heale ...

That's fine. It's not like it's tilting the balance of the article by adding another citation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, FFP isn't mentioned in C&H. Not sure about removing it though, as it does make the article more complete.

News:

• Bond (2014): Title doesn't match the source's current title

Fixed.

• Forsyth (2012): Dead link, dead archive link

Internet Archive doesn't work on this one, not sure if there's anything more I can do here.

Can it be removed or replaced? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, same info is in the book anyway.

• In full: Prime Minister Liz Truss... (2022): Should not be marked as dead

Fixed.

• McAuley (2022): I get a tabloid-y impression from Liverpool Echo.

Unfortunately, we have no great sources on Truss's stance on LBGT rights. So, this is

"best available"

, I suppose.

• McGee (2022a): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• McGee (2022b): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• Pengelly (2022): I don't know if this source is helpful. For the claim that it was criticized by former students, we're essentially analyzing this primary source of one instance to confirm it. If the other two sources already say it, then that should be fine.

Removed.

• Perry (2023): Retrieval date is missing. But overall this seems like an opinion source used to cite a contentious claim, and I recommend replacing it.

I did remove it but it got added back shortly after. I doubt the reliability of "PinkNews" in any case. Removed, again.

• Reshuffle at a glance... (2014): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• Steerpike (2022): The Spectator is not considered generally reliable due to its opinionated nature, and I don't recommend using it to attribute Truss's beliefs.

Used a primary (but better) source.

• Stone (2022): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• Thomas (2022a): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• Thomas (2022b): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• Toynbee (2013): This is correctly attributed, but I don't know if this opinion piece is due at all. It's better to use sources that talk about the disagreement rather than the primary source for the disagreement.

Removed.

• Walker et al (2022): Should not be marked as dead.

Fixed.

• Wheeler & Francis (2022): Links to a different (updated?) article

Marked as "dead".

Websites and others:

• Pullig & León-Ledesma (2022) – I'd want stronger sourcing for this claim.

Disagree here, sorry. I think this was recommended to me at PR as a "scholarly" source.

• What makes Local Elections Archive Project a reliable source?

Replaced.

• Wallenfeldt (2023) – I don't know how other editors feel about this, but I'm not comfortable with Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source at FAC.

Removed

• • On this last, see
    WP:BRITANNICA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Later I'll look more closely at the text of the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• One other note on formatting: Jones & Norton (2014) should have an edition number. It looks like the 8th edition was used.

Missed this one when answering the others. Fixed. Also an opportunity to ping you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

• Allen (2023) – I don't see where it supports Balmoral castle.

Added ref.

• Bogdanor (2022) – Checked all five uses:
  • Does page 566 support "with the number of votes cast for her increasing in each"?

Yes, the statement is sort of spread out across the page.

• • Page 570 only supports that Hunt reversed the tax-cuts, not "many of the remaining policies announced in the mini-budget, leading to further instability"

No, but the other one does: "With the negative reaction to this plan being immediate, Truss began cutting bits of the mini budget, but this only further increased the economic and political instability".

• • Page 570 only supports that she made the decision on 20 October, not the rest of the sentence.

Good spot: fixed.

• Diamond et al (2023) – Checked all three uses:
  • I don't see that Sunak kept Hunt. Does Hickson & William support this?

Yes.

• • Does this source support that the plan involved borrowing, or is that only in one of the other sources?

No, Marsh 2023.

• Kutllovci (2022) – This doesn't associate instability with Hunt's actions. Also, while this seems well-researched, I don't like that it's labeled "satirical" and uses a less academic tone, particularly for a source supporting a strong claim like this.

It associates instability with the u-turns, which Hunt was responsible for. Where is it labelled "satirical"? It calls Truss "unremarkable", but it's not like that disqualifies it from being a good source. Again, it was recommended to me at PR.

• Marsh (2023) – Checked all five uses:
  • Page 120 doesn't support the quote. I'm assuming Cole & Heale does?

Yes.

• • Page 122 doesn't say she was the 15th PM under Elizabeth II.

Fixed.

• • Does Page 122 support "was to be funded by borrowing and was intended to stimulate growth"?

Yes: "The £45bn Truss-Kwarteng 'plan for growth' [...] £45bn of debt-fuelled tax cuts..."

• Middleton (2023) – Checked all five uses:
  • Does Page 13 support 20 July?

Not explicitly, but it does go into detail about the vote. Backed up with another source.

• • I don't see Balmoral on Page 9.

Good spot again. Overlaps with other query, but fixed.

• Mason (2014) – I don't see that this supports anything it's supposed to.

It supports the bits about maths in Asia.

• McSmith (2014b) – Good.
• Scott (2022) – Good.
• Stratton (2013) – I'm assuming the other sources support "angered".

Yes, see my response to UC above: has words like "apoplectic".

• "Ukraine war: Liz Truss says Russia sanctions should end only after withdrawal". BBC News. – Good.

I can assure you that I was just very unlucky you picking the sources you did: you used pretty much all of the "bad" ones. I was very careful with Cole and Heale: I reread it every time to made sure that it was supporting what it was meant to, that it was the right page, etc. Thanks for the review, hopefully all fixed now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's obligatory that I have to say "ideally there shouldn't be any 'bad' ones". But soon I'll go through again and do a few more spot checks and see it holds up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, ideally not. But we're all human, we all make mistakes; for example, not citing the Balmoral claim because it was such a simple fact. Looking forward to your further analysis. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you've justified much of what I listed, and you fixed the few minor issues. I also haven't found any copyvio or close paraphrasing.

• On several of the book sources, I noticed that the editors are listed as the authors. If the chapter is written by a different author, then the author and the chapter should be included in the reference as well as the editors.

Are there any where the chapter author is different from the editor? Not being glib, genuine question.

Aylott & Bolin (2020), Bennie (2002), and Jones & Norton (2014) are the ones I noticed, but a check over all of them wouldn't hurt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: you got them all anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I also want to ask about Bale (2023) in further reading. What's its relevance to Truss?

Looks at the leadership of May, Johnson, Truss and (so far) Sunak: I don't have it, but could be interesting for others.

More spot checks of book and journal sources:

• Aylott & Bolin (2020): I'm confused as to what purpose this citation serves. It's cited in the footnote defining the 1922 Committee, but I don't see any definition on this page.

Here? There is. Page 212? We could broaden it to 202 though, where it is slightly more explicit.

I see a mention, but as someone who had never heard of the 1922 Committee, I still have no idea what it is after reading that page. Citing it to 202 as well should work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Bennie (2002): I can't view this page through Google Books, but the previous page indicates that this is about results by country, not the whole UK election. Is this assumption correct?

Yes and no: the country bit continues, but sums up the national mood in the Wales section "disappointing almost everywhere"; there's a link in the "Resolved comments" section of UC's comments, if you want to look there (you can Ctrl+F "230").

• Fall (2020) – Good.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that BUA: done most now. Shortly before your comments, I went through a chunk of the article and didn't find any discrepancies, just widened the scope of one of the book refs to make it a bit more "solid". Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien - Think everything should now be fixed. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Spot checks didn't turn up any copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but Earwig identified two phrases that should be reworded:

• "During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy"
• "Truss denied she had failed to defend the judges"

There are no other copyvio or close paraphrasing issues in anything else I checked, and the text-source integrity issues ended up being justified or easily fixed. This should be the last step. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass source review. Any potential concerns have been explained or addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks biguglyalien. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• "in her last year at the university, she resigned from the LDYS." Is it known which year this was?

1996 was her last year at uni, but I'm not sure whether it means the "school year": 1995–1996, or just 1996.

Me too. One assumes some time between November 1995 and July 1996 is meant. But a reader has to read the following sentence to gain some idea of when is meant, and even then doesn't know which year. "However, by November 1995, Truss had become critical of the Liberal Democrats, as she "realised the Tory Party was saying quite sane things"; in her last year at the university, she resigned from the LDYS.[22] By 1996, Truss had joined the Conservative Party." → 'However, by November 1995, Truss had become critical of the Liberal Democrats, as she "realised the Tory Party was saying quite sane things".[22] By 1996, Truss had resigned from the Liberal Democrats and joined the Conservative Party.' would seem to actually convey more information. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I'm not wedded to that prose, and as it contains the same information (Truss leaves the Lib Dems in 1995/96 and joins the Tories in 1996), still without disambiguating the year she did actually leave, I'm leaning towards keeping the existing version. They're both equally understandable, and the reader can infer the basics: Truss becomes disenchanted with her party sometime around the end of her education, and joined the Tories either the year or year after. We've already said that she "graduated in 1996". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike phrasing which requires a reader to have read and be able to recall previous prose to be fully comprehensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is only five short sentences before and the date she joined the Conservatives is immediately after. I get that you'd do it differently, but, in the words of a different reviewer, "I'm me and you're you". The information, I think, isn't going to be lost on readers, especially when it carries the same information as before. If you feel that strongly though, go ahead and change it and I won't stand in your way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "a Chartered Management Accountant." Why the upper-case initial letters? Similarly for some of "as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party", "held various Cabinet positions"

Re CMA, is a position from

MOS:JOB. "Cabinet" per what is most commonly used in POLUK articles, like "Parliament". I had a discussion with Tim r about this in August: here

.

Many, even most, organisations like to capitalise things important to them. Their preferences, even if copied elsewhere, do not override the MoS. Surely we would say "the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants" but "a chartered management accountant". Or, arguably better for readers unaware of what "chartered means in this context, 'a fully qualified management accountant' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "including an "impassioned" speech from Truss". The MoS states "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

Fixed.

• Infobox: why is her father named and not her mother?

Isn't that parameter for notable relatives? I.e. people with their own articles? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I cannot find this in Template:Infobox officeholder. Is it in some other policy? (I am not aware of it, but am not a biography expert.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was based on this line in Template:Infobox person: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. Not a policy, but still a decent rule of thumb: Priscilla Grasby has no article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox instructions carry a fair bit of weight. For some reason that instruction is not included in the instructions for the infobox you used, but you make a good case. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "she called for reform in several policy areas including childcare, mathematics, education and ..." Is there some way of indicating that she advocated for the reform of mathematics in the context of education? Otherwise she comes across as even more of a fruitcake than is justified.

Changed to "mathematics in education"; that seems to be what irked her most, so should be justified in the lead.

• Reference 201 does not link to a citation.

Dammit. Fixed.

• Why no publisher locations for Aylott et al, Bassett et al and Bale?

Will look in soon.

Done: two UKs and a Switzerland.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional: I would be inclined to add the splendid note 3 to the lead, or you are liable to get endless quibbles and even changes from Medieval history nerds. Such as myself.

Tried to by naming the refs, but efns are a different breed than NoteTags, so I'm not sure how to repeat it without creating two identical notes; feel free to have a stab yourself. (By the way, endless quibbles? Have you read this FAC?) :)

• Why does the article not state how long she was prime minister for? (49 days) You give this for Canning. And state it in the lead.

Subject of debate on talk last year. 49 full days maybe, but resigned on her fiftieth day. I'd say 49 (or possibly 44, when her government became a lame duck) but the consensus is the pedantic "she was prime minister during fifty days". Put "fiftieth".

• The Merton College image created a sandwich at most settings I tried. Move it down?

Got rid of the sidebar instead, the navboxes do fine on their own.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Re your edit summary, this is not a review (that would be quite a bit longer) just the main points from a coordinator pre-closure skim, mostly of the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The MoS, in
  WP:HOWCITE says "Citations for books typically include ... place of publication". This is usually understood to mean the "place" the publisher gives on the title page, rather than the country that place is or was in. Why are you using the country? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Right. Watch this space. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply removed them all. Consistency in the style of referencing comes first and I can't see that the locations are essential to our readers finding the book in question. Some, like Aylott, give a tangle of street names and buildings. No way that I can see to maintain a style consistent with the others. As always, feel free to have a shot yourself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine.

• Ok, thanks. Looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]