United Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 22, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 3, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted January 22, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed March 6, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed September 24, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Europe Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 May 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

Archives

Country/State debate archives June 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 Terminology debate archives July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 Subdivision name debate archives April 2008 – June 2008

As there is a difference of opinion on whether the UK is in "northwestern Europe" or "Northwestern Europe", there is a discussion at talk:Central Europe#Capitalising informal region names to which editors of this article may wish to contribute. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As of November 2025, the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) has updated the population figure to 69,487,000. Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/generator?format=xls&uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/ukpop/pop Access date: January 20, 2026. Svlrn (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a more precise reading available? The linked reading is rounded to the nearest 1000, while the cited reading in the article is not rounded. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that the first part of the second paragraph here should better summarise the history of the area that became the United Kingdom prior to 1707. Here is a stab:

Most of Britain became part of the Roman Empire from AD 43. When Roman rule ended after 410, the east and south of Britain were settled by Germanic tribes from continental Europe who, by the 10th century, had united to form the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of Scotland was established in the northern third of Britain by the 9th century. In 1066, an invasion from Normandy, France resulted in the conquest England and parts of Wales. The island of Ireland came under partial control of England from 1169 and, by the 16th century, was united as an English dependency. The area which is now Wales was conquered by England in 1282 and later formally annexed to England in the mid-16th century. Over the 17th century …

Thoughts anyone? Jp2207 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks too long to me. If anything that part of the lead should be shortened. If the choice is between the two I prefer the existing. There's some specific phrases I don't agree with but that's a secondary concern. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its too long. I’m also not convinced that an article concerning a polity originating in 1707 should start at the neolithic! So, based on a reading of the main body, how about this?:

By the mid-16th century, Great Britain consisted of two independent states: the Kingdom of Scotland in the northern third, and the Kingdom of England in the southern two-thirds. England had annexed Wales in 1542 and controlled the Kingdom of Ireland as a dependency since the Tudor conquest of Ireland. In 1603, Scotland and England were united in a personal union but each kingdom continued to be governed as separate states. In the mid-17th century, after a series of interconnected wars, the monarchy was abolished establishing a short-lived unitary republic. The monarchy was restored in 1660 but the king was again deposed in 1689. Thereafter, a constitutional system of parliamentary democracy evolved. In 1707, a treaty created the Kingdom of Great Britain which later became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland when Ireland was incorporated in 1801. Northern Ireland was created in 1921 after most of Ireland seceded from the UK. Jp2207 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common for country article history sections to give a full history of the territory and not just the history pf the state. Besides, per WP:LEAD the article begins with the neolithic so should the lead summary. What are you trying to achieve here? You haven't explained what you see as the problem you're trying to fix. Is there even a problem? DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was confused. In my mind, the UK is foremost a polity not a territory (which is easily covered by British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland etc). If you look at the article History of the United Kingdom it takes the other extreme by not mentioning anything prior to 1707! Yet I can now see that often the name of a “country” also commonly refers to a territory, not just the extant polity on that territory, and the territory will have a longer history. After surveying the articles of many other modern states, there is consistency. So no problem to fix. And thanks for the feedback. Jp2207 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the Queen is the Head of the Judiciary. Her judgement is missing, it's the one I wrote. ~2026-61559-2 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the economy section, they talk about F1 in the UK and how 7 out of 10 teams are based in the UK. In 2026 there are now 11 F1 Teams (+ Cadillac F1). So it would be 7 out of 11 not 10. MCL39 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, although I can't see where the number seven comes from. From what I can see on the List of Formula One constructors page, six of the teams are based solely in the UK, while ten are based at least partially in the UK. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 20:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Add “ | event_post = Titles amended | date_post = 16 April 1927” to the history section.Curiousperson2 (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Unclear what this is trying to do. If it is for the History section, it's not coded like that. If this is for the infobox, the relevant section is an establishment of sovereignty section, and also not coded like that.

CMD (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, just insert it under the part mentioning the partition of the Irish free state. Curiousperson2 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first line after the summary is misleading, it says "Britain has been inhabited since the Neolithic" (neolithic = 2-10,000 years). Though factually correct it should frame the subject with something similar to that seen on 'wiki/Prehistoric_Britain' where it says: "humans have intermittently occupied Great Britain for almost a million years" regards... ~2026-10477-35 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've changed "Britain has been inhabited" to "Britain has been continuously inhabited". Hopefully this adequately addresses your concern. Day Creature (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change citation [o]

From The United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments, traditions, and conventions

To The United Kingdom has an uncodified constitution formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments, traditions, and conventions

Per the current UCL citation (^[1]) and supported by other RS (^[2]), it "is not strictly correct" to describe the UK constitution as "unwritten", "it is largely written, but in different documents".

Acts of Parliament, court judgements and conventions are 'written down', but the constitution remains uncodified. Saiga Antelope (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I considered this but came up with two tentative reasons not to, yet.

• The documents of which the constitution is composed are written, of course, but is there a written document spelling out which of those is considered constitutional in nature? One that incorporates the relevant Acts of Parliament, court judgments, traditions, and conventions by reference?
• When I turned to the footnotes I first noticed citation [s], which reads Maurice Sunkin opined the Crown symbolically occupies "...what in other places would be a core element of a written constitution", demonstrating the usual convention of calling the UK constitution unwritten. That interpretation and the one made by your sources appear to be at odds over what "unwritten" means in this usage of the word. I don't know which is the predominate interpretation in relevant literature, and that matters in terms of what we have written here. At the least, it would seem weird to have [o] state one thing and [s] to aver the opposite. I think we should have others chime in here and try to reach a consensus for changing it before we do. Largoplazo (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response- I also support seeking consensus. However, I would still like to suggest that the UK constitution is not 'unwritten'.

Let me outline my arguments below for anyone else who turns up.

TLDR: The UK constitution is 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. To say that the UK constitution is unwritten is, at best, misleading and, at worst, incorrect. As authoritative RS indicate (like Parliament's website), the UK constitution is largely, and possibly entirely, written down but it is not codified in a single document. This distinction is important because it conveys the trend in recent history (e.g. Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005) of placing a few major documents at the heart of the UK constitution. Pragmatically, we should make the simple and straightforward change to the term 'uncodified' to be more accurate and reduce confusion.

1) Convention

A simple google search will return RS explaining that the term unwritten is inaccurate.

Whilst historically it may have more accurate to describe the UK constitution (e.g. 17th Century) as 'unwritten', authorities on this matter, including this other page on the parliamentary website make it clear that the term unwritten is now inaccurate. The best explanation I have found comes from that page; 'People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true... Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)'

2) Semantic

For the reasons outlined above, it is accurate to describe the UK constitution as not wholly written, but this does not mean unwritten. There is a fundamental difference between 'not being a written (implying codified) constitution' (per Sunkin's quote) and being 'unwritten'. This might seem pedantic, but it's an important distinction; the UK constitution is not all written, but it is not unwritten.

3) Pragmatic

The whole problem can be avoided by using 'uncodified'. Not once in the Constitution of the United Kingdom article does it describe the constitution as 'unwritten'.

We can agree that 'uncodified' is clearly correct. Given that a number of reliable sources (including both the one already cited in the article and Parliament's own website) challenge the accuracy of 'unwritten', from a practical perspective, it is better to use 'uncodified' than 'unwritten' as it avoids the ambiguity outright.

Sorry for the spam :) Saiga Antelope (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search will return RS explaining that the term unwritten is inaccurate: A simple Google search for what?

If reliable sources in general term it "unwritten", we say it's "unwritten". We go by the preponderance of reliable sources, not our own analysis of whether the sources are accurate. Largoplazo (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources in general term it "unwritten", we say it's "unwritten"- I don't think they do though.

I think that the most reliable sources do not support the term 'unwritten' without context.

I don't want to get into an argument, but this is not what I am saying. I am saying that academic sources prefer the term 'uncodified'. It is not my opinion or my analysis. I have linked clear RS like Parliament's own website.

Also per WP:RS, the idea that we shouldn't use "our own analysis of whether the sources are accurate" doesn't mean we shouldn't weigh up the credibility of sources. WP:RS states that "in case of a dispute, editors need to be able to explain why they relied on that source".

UCL- What is the UK constitution?

I won't say anything more, because I want to be constructive and, in the end, it's a minor issue :) Saiga Antelope (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change: >In 1066 the Normans conquered England

To:

In 1066 the Normans conquered England and subsequently Wales and Ireland.

Or a rewording of that. Since this article deals with the United Kingdom as a whole and not just England it makes sense to focus on the Normans role in the whole British Isles' history and not just England. Thanks. ~2026-71794-6 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is in the lead, which is a quick run-through of the highlights. The details, which cover the arrival of the Normans in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, are in the history section. Largoplazo (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]