Talk:Ruth Davidson

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

  • Ruth Davidson MSP .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson's full title

Is she currently a baroness, or will she become one in a few months? And what is her (or will be) her full title? PatGallacher (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources suggest that she does not yet have this title, although clarification might help. PatGallacher (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to wait and see for her full title. I don't see what more clarification anyone would need. We've already made it clear that she is not yet a baroness. I don't really know how we can help those people who don't understand the difference between past, present and future tense. Alex (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

birthplace

I don't see why we need to mention which particular maternity ward she was born in, but it certainly isn't going in without a reliable source. Meters (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

  • Ruth Davidson 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

  • Ruth Davidson 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent tax cuts at Westminster

If nicola sturgeon has been or will be given the funds to finance tax cuts why is she not passing this onto Scottish people Can it be that the money is to cover discrepancies in Scottish budget for last year Why is no-one challenging SNP on this 80.192.184.51 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

  • David Cameron with Ruth Davidson in Edinburgh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruth Davidson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be picking up this review. I know a decent amount about Davidson already, so I'm interested in learning more about her. Apologies that it took so long for this article to get reviewed. I'll go through section-by-section with my thoughts, then I'll finish with the checklist. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grnrchst and thank you for reviewing this article. Apologies that their are so many problems I think I was fairly new to good article reviews when I nominated this.--Llewee (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise! That's what review processes are for! :) Ping me when you think you've addressed everything and I'll take another wee look at it. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst, I think I've sorted out most of the issues now, some sections of the article have changed quite a bit.--Llewee (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work! Thanks so much for going through all of this so thoroughly. I'll have another look over the latest version, see if I have any notes and I'll get back to you. Thanks again! :D -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • It reads a bit odd that her unsuccessful election runs mention what place she finished in and with what percentage of the vote, when her successful runs don't. Think you could cut this detail and replace it with "but she was unsuccessful" or something similar. Done
  • For the 2011 election, you could just say she was elected from the Glasgow regional list. Don't think there's any need to mention her unsuccessful run in Kelvin constituency. Done
  • There could definitely be more detail about what she did and what her political positions were during her time as Scottish Conservative leader. Done

Early life and career

  • I don't think it needs clarifying that the "Edinburgh Royal Maternity Hospital" is in Edinburgh, that should already be clear from the name.  Done
  • Fife is linked twice in this section, you can remove the second link. Done
  • I'd add an "also" to "She served as a signaller". Done
  • "for people to get involved in politics who had never previously been political." I think this would read better as "for people who had never previously been political to get involved in politics. Done
  • Detail about her losing the shortlist for an English seat to Sajid Javid seems superfluous and could easily be cut. I'll also note it's cited to a Conservative blog, so may not meet standards for reliability. Done
  • I don't think the portrait of her here is necessary, when we already have a portrait of her in the infobox. Other images of her in the article show her in different contexts, but this one could be removed. Done
  • Add a "the" to "Edinburgh Royal Maternity Hospital [...]" Done
  • Add a link to Scottish Borders for "Borders", just for clarity. Done

Member of the Scottish Parliament

  • Section header is currently dated, but none of the other section headers have such dates. I'd suggest removing it. Done
  • This section is quite long and has a lot of subsections. I'd recommend moving the "Election and first roles" subsection into the "Early life and career" section, replacing the "Member of Scottish Parliament" section by moving up its largest subsection "Leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party" and merging the "Return to backbenches" subsection and the small "House of Lords" section into a "Later career" section, or something similar. Done

Election and first roles

  • As per above, citation to a Conservative blog should be removed. Done
  • "This made it very unlikely [...]" this isn't exactly supported by information in the cited source (The Scotsman) and could be considered original research. I'd suggest cutting this. Done
  • Link to The Scotsman article is no longer live, so url-status should be changed to "dead" in the citation template. Done
  • In my opinion, the first couple sentences could be cut down to something as simple as "For the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, was initially placed second on the Conservatives' Glasgow region list, behind Malcolm Macaskill." - I have tried to simplify this but I think the constituency should be mentioned as it's followed on from later in the section.
  • There are two sentences about Macaskill's business dealings scandal that could probably be cut down into one. Done
  • "On 24 March" This date isn't actually supported by the cited source (The Scotsman) but is supported by others cited in this same section (Evening Times, The Herald, The Telegraph) Consider moving the citations around a bit to reflect this. Done
  • "In the event" What? Is this supposed to say "In the election"? Done
  • Is there anything more that can be said about her role as Culture spokesperson? I know she wasn't in the role for very long, but might be worth looking into what she did during that wee period.-I looked for information on this period but their doesn't seem to be any available.
  • "became involved in controversy" reads a bit odd. Consider rewriting. Done

Election bid

  • No reason to cite the same source twice within the same sentence. Done
  • What is a "party grandee"? It's unclear. Done
  • Do we have sources for any of these named endorsements? The current cited source (The Herald) only supports the bit about the chairpersons not endorsing her.-taken out ones I couldn't find sources for.
  • Change the archived version of The Herald to its 2013 version, as you can actually read the article there. Done
  • Surely there's a better source for half of the Conservative MSPs endorsing Murdo Fraser than his own campaign website. Done
  • There needs to be a comma or two somewhere in the sentence about Ross MacFarlane and the place it's currently placed isn't it.-split into two sentences
  • Citation [30] (The Herald) needs an archived url, as it's currently a dead link.  Done
  • "second-placed" reads a bit odd. Maybe replace with "runner up"?  Done
  • Might be worth adding a wee detail about why Goldie resigned, just for context.
  • Add link to Centrism for "centrists". Done
  • Maybe move "ideologically" elsewhere in the sentence? Done

Early leadership

  • "eight-pronged cross" Isn't it a saltire?- It's a sort of stylised cross between a saltire and union jack. This is the present day version: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ScottishConservativeLogo2022.png
  • "lost seats" comma after this  Done
  • You're using single quotation marks here, but everywhere else in the article double quotation marks are used. This needs standardising. Done
  • "forums such as Social Media" don't know why social media is capitalised here. Also think "forums such as" could be cut.  Done
  • "The term 'hack' doesn't have the same negative connotations in the UK as elsewhere." Think this explanatory note needs a source if it's going to be included. Just personally, I tend to think of it as having negative connotations. Done I've added a citation here. It more in the sense of how journalists use it. I wanted to make clear that the columnist wouldn't have meant it as an insult.
  • "economy.These" needs a space  Done
  • "about her such as" needs a comma between "her" and "such"  Done

2014 Scottish independence referendum

  • "She campaigned for the Union". This reads a bit non-neutral, maybe "She campaigned for a No vote"? That's what it says in the source, after all. Done
  • "because she loved [...]". Again, reads a bit non-neutral and not exactly in line with the source. Maybe "because she worried independence would damage [...]" Done
  • Is there anything more that could be written about her role in the campaign? Currently it's focused on her reflections from after-the-fact, it doesn't mention what she did and said during the referendum. This section could definitely be expanded somewhat. Done I've added some information to the referendum section and some detail about the legacy of the referendum to the electoral gains section.
  • Last paragraph could be rewritten a little, as that's a very long sentence there. Done
  • "in 2014 expressing" needs a comma between "2014" and "expressing"  Done
  • "in Scotland such as Trident" needs a comma before "such as"  Done

Relative success in 2016 and 2017

  • Subsection header reads a bit odd, consider rewriting. Maybe "Electoral gains" or something? Done
  • Add a link to "devolution" for more clarity and add a comma after it. Done
  • Party names should be capitalised. So the small-c for conservative as an ideology is fine, but you should use the big-C for Conservatives, as in party members. (Ditto for Labour and the Liberal Democrats)  Done
  • "In a election" should be "In an election"  Done

Resignation

  • "citing several political and personal reasons" could we mention what some of those reasons were? Done
  • "Davidson supported several of Boris Johnson's opponents" Think you could either cut "several of" here. Done
  • "a figure Davidson had criticised and mocked in previous years." This reads a bit odd, given its connection with the earlier part of the sentence. Consider rewriting.  Done

Return to backbenches

  • "she abandoned her taking up of the role" reads a bit odd. Maybe "she reversed her decision" or something similar? Done
  • Loch Ness detail seems like it would be a good DYK hook. Consider submitting it after this review is done.
  • "after the resignation of Jackson Carlaw who resigned" you only need to mention that he resigned once. Just "after Jackson Carlaw resigned" should do fine. Done
  • "support for Scottish Independence on the rise" Maybe "rising support for Scottish Independence" instead?  Done I have reworked this whole section and added another citation as it didn't seem to be exactly based on what the source said.
  • Move the thumbnail to the right, per MOS:IMAGELOC, it looks a bit awkward there on the left. Done
  • "in years to come when" should have a comma between "come" and "when"  Done
  • "during the COVID-19 pandemic" not sure this is relevant to Carlaw resigning.  Done

House of Lords

  • Do we have any more information about her career in the House of Lords? What she has done, what bills she supported/opposed, etc.?- I've tried to flesh this section out a bit but she doesn't seem to have gained much attention since 2021
  • Cut "as from the following month". Don't think that detail is necessary. Done
  • Likewise, do we have any more information about her work with Times Radio?- See above
  • "rwanda" this needs to be capitalised.  Done

Public image

  • "most Scottish papers which" comma between "papers" and "which"  Done
  • "Ruth Davidson's appeal had routes in the fact" Think you mean "roots" here. You could also use "stemmed from the fact". Done - I would prefer to use roots because stemmed would suggest that it was the only factor which is not what the source says.

Policies and views

  • "though she subsequently supported leaving the Customs Union and ending free movement." Any reason for why she decided to support this after previously opposing it?-I've taken this out as it wasn't sourced.
  • Almost the entire opening paragraph is about her views on Brexit, this could be moved to the "European Union" subsection.- In regards to this and the previous point, I have deleted the paragraph as it is sourced from a blog and telegraph article which seems a to be based on a questionable assumption.
  • Consider alphabetising the subsections by their headers. Done
  • "Immigration" subsection could be merged into the "European Union" subsection. Done
  • "Agriculture" subsection is another Brexit-focused subsection that could be merged.- I've deleted it as the sourcing was questionable.
  • Do we have a better source for her views on "lenient sentencing" than a post on her 2011 leadership campaign website? Done
  • Justice and devolution or two completely different issues that really should have their own sections. I'm also convinced that we could find more on her views on devolution, seeing as she was such a prominent unionist. Done
  • Again, any better sources for the section on "Business and infrastructure" than her 2011 leadership campaign website?
  • Per above comments cited to her campaign website, but for her comments on early years centres. Done
  • The existing "European Union" section could actually be moved into the career part of her biography, between the 2014 independence referendum and the conservative electoral gains, as it's not so much about her policies and views as it is about her role in the Brexit referendum and afterwards. Done
  • "Ruth Davidson is willing [...] She asserts" present tense here should be changed to past tense. Done
  • "2016 Conservative leadership election" subsection is a carbon copy of a part of the "Relative success" subsection. This should be cut. Done
  • Has she made any other comments on foreign policy, or just on Saudi Arabia? Done
  • Generally this section could be rearranged and expanded a bit. Done
  • "in 2016 she wrote" comma after "2016"  Done
  • "Foreign Affairs" think the "a" in "affairs" can be de-capitalised  Done
  • There should be a "the" before "Church of Scotland"  Done
  • Think the "t" in "Trans rights" can be de-capitalised  Done

Personal life

  • No need to cite the Scottish Conservatives website if we already have citations from The Daily Telegraph and STV.  Done

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

There were a couple permanently dead links. I managed to fix one, but the other ([83] ""MSP Response: Ruth Davidson (Conservative)". Defend Marriage in Scotland.) needs replacing. Davidson's comments on equal marriage are quite well reported, so I'm sure you'll be able to find an alternative source.

There's also a CS1 maintenance tag for url-status. Some of these are due to links being marked live, when they're actually dead, or live links being explicitly tagged.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Reference formatting needs work. There are many cases of citations that don't have their author, date and/or publication listed. (E.g. [1] doesn't reference its publication (STV), [2] doesn't have its author or date listed, etc.) Please make sure every source is fully cited. This needs fixing before the review can be passed. This seems to have been dealt with.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    There are a couple questionable sources such as Conservative blogs that are referenced, but these aren't common and could easily be dealt with.
    c. (OR):
    There are a few cases of information in the article not being in the source it's cited to. I've mentioned these above and they need to be dealt with.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No clear issues with copyvios or plagiarism. Haven't seen close paraphrasing of sources and earwig's tool doesn't flag anything.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
    There are a couple cases where it goes into minor tangents, but these aren't at all a problem and are relatively easy to trim. At times I worry it focuses more on the Conservative Party under her leadership than it does on her leadership itself, but again, this isn't a major issue.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No issues with neutrality. Only things I found that might be considered non-neutral are quite easily solved.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Has been stable for over a year.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Most images are covered by the Open Scottish Parliament License. The other remaining image has been reviewed and found to be licensed under cc-by-2.0.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All the images are relevant to the subject and have suitable captions. Only issue is that none of them have alt text, this should be included for the benefit of visually impaired readers and users with low bandwidth.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Holding for now. This is generally quite close to passing, but the issues with verifiability are keeping it back at the moment. If the issues I've raised are sufficiently addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llewee: We're almost there! There's just a few minor issues with prose, punctuation and a couple other things that need addressing. After that I'll be sure to pass this. Excellent work! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llewee: Ok! Seems like all my notes have been addressed, the article's looking much better now and I'm more than happy to pass this review. Thanks for taking this on and doing such good work on it. Your efforts are appreciated. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)
Ruth Davidson in 2016
Ruth Davidson in 2016

Improved to Good Article status by Llewee (talk). Self-nominated at 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ruth Davidson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article promoted to GA status and no detectable copyvios. QPQ has been met interesting hook, the image is in the public domain and the article complies with Wikipedia's policies, as any issues were addressed during the GA review. I personally prefer the first hook as it gives mmore context, but the alternative one is shorter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not sure if I prefer ALT1 because I think the original sounds more absurd. Llewee (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruth_Davidson&oldid=1217223180"