Liz Truss is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 5, 2023 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2023 Featured article candidate Promoted News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 6, 2022, and October 20, 2022. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 26, 2024, and October 25, 2024. Current status: Featured article

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

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. East Anglia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Article history

Change Lord Chancellor to Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain as Shabana Mahmood has it and all LCs should have it. 86.147.210.198 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – no need, and example cited does not use this term Billsmith60 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Lord High Chancellor is a former title of the office now known as Lord Chancellor so not in current use. In fact, the Lord Chancellor article begins: The Lord Chancellor, formally titled Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain.... This is Paul (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing "former" and "formal"! Please note, though, that this IP user is the banned editor "Earl of Sutton Coldfield", AKA "Mr Hall of England". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes...so I am. It's not a term in common use though. This is Paul (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an up to date infopage for Liz Truss.

The Right Honourable Liz Truss
Official portrait, 2022
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
In office 6 September 2022 – 25 October 2022
Monarchs	Elizabeth II Charles III
Deputy	Thérèse Coffey
Preceded by	Boris Johnson
Succeeded by	Rishi Sunak
Leader of the Conservative Party
In office 5 September 2022 – 24 October 2022
Preceded by	Boris Johnson
Succeeded by	Rishi Sunak
Ministerial offices 2012‍–‍2022 Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs In office 15 September 2021 – 6 September 2022 Prime Minister Boris Johnson Preceded by Dominic Raab Succeeded by James Cleverly Minister for Women and Equalities In office 10 September 2019 – 6 September 2022 Prime Minister Boris Johnson Preceded by Amber Rudd Succeeded by Nadhim Zahawi Secretary of State for International Trade President of the Board of Trade In office 24 July 2019 – 15 September 2021 Prime Minister Boris Johnson Preceded by Liam Fox Succeeded by Anne-Marie Trevelyan Chief Secretary to the Treasury In office 11 June 2017 – 24 July 2019 Prime Minister Theresa May Preceded by David Gauke Succeeded by Rishi Sunak Secretary of State for Justice Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain In office 14 July 2016 – 11 June 2017 Monarch Elizabeth II Prime Minister Theresa May Preceded by Michael Gove Succeeded by David Lidington Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs In office 15 July 2014 – 14 July 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron Preceded by Owen Paterson Succeeded by Andrea Leadsom Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Childcare and Education In office 4 September 2012 – 15 July 2014 Prime Minister David Cameron Preceded by Sarah Teather Succeeded by Sam Gyimah
Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk
In office 6 May 2010 – 30 May 2024
Preceded by	Christopher Fraser
Succeeded by	Terry Jermy
Personal details
Born	Mary Elizabeth Truss (1975-07-26) 26 July 1975 (age 49) Oxford, England
Political party	Conservative (since 1996)
Other political affiliations	Liberal Democrats (until 1996)
Spouse	Hugh O'Leary ​ (m. 2000)​
Children	2
Parent	John Truss (father)
Education	Merton College, Oxford (BA)
Signature
Liz Truss's voice Truss's first speech as prime minister Recorded 6 September 2022

86.147.210.198 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the above is block evasion by "Earl of Sutton Coldfield"/"Mr Hall of England". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to assert that every other PM's deputy appears there; see Gordon Brown, for instance Billsmith60 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His First Secretary of State, equivalent to DPM, is there. TheHandofFear (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could other users please chip in on a debate Tim O'Doherty and I are having regarding the inclusion of the Deputy PM (DPM) in the Infobox?

It seems clear to me that the DPM should be included, given this is the case with other comparable articles including Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair and Rishi Sunak.

Tim O'Doherty hasn’t provided any reasoning for the exclusion of DPM, yet continues to revert the inclusion, so I have taken this here in order to avoid edit-warring. TheHandofFear (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly notable enough to be included, as it was the first time both positions were held by a female. This is Paul (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Starmer, Johnson, Blair and Sunak's articles are not FAs so modelling this article on those is not a good idea. Per MOS:IB, the infobox should "exclude unnecessary content": that Thérèse Coffey was deputy prime minister from September to October 2022 is unnecessary information for this article's infobox. The deputy prime minister is practically a non-job, only filled a handful of times throughout history (especially for Tory DPMs, although the role has become more important post-Truss, according to Anthony Seldon), and not at all like the American vice president, which is a much more significant and well-defined role. Who was deputy prime minister under Truss is not the type of info needed in the infobox of this biographical article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Tim. The title is a bit of a red herring: with a few notable exceptions (Nick Clegg, for instance), the DPM isn't a "number two" or, in any meaningful sense, more important than other major cabinet figures -- the next one down the hierarchy is usually the Chancellor. Given the prominent place of the parameter at the top of the infobox, it isn't WP:DUEWEIGHT to put Coffey up there, given what WP:HQRS say about the relative ranking and prominence of Coffey versus other senior ministers (Kwarteng, for instance) under Truss. Further agreed that "other articles do it" is neither here nor there, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source and those articles, by and large, have undergone no major review or endorsement by the community. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice somebody has put up the (rather snide and trite) comment that "the lettuce outlasted her". This is not a greatly encyclopaedic tone and has already been addressed through the quite lengthy piece on the confidence crisis, appointment of Hunt, departure of Braverman, fracking vote, Brady meeting and resignation speech—all which happened in the space of a week following the stunt being set up, as is mentioned. In the Guardian source (incorrectly formatted for this article, which is unfortunate but not surprising) the statement does not appear to be found once: nor does the word "lettuce" even look to be mentioned once in sixteen scrolling pages, aside from the video link at the top, which also does not say anything like the "information" added. I'm not sure I'd class this as a "featured article" anymore, really. It's certainly not at the standard it was even a year ago, and not helped by importing things like this at all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tim O'Doherty, when it comes to "rather snide and trite" comments, "unfortunate but not surprising" might conform. Unfortunately you do not make clear what Guardian article you are referring too. The first, added by Pigsonthewing may not have verified it (although the material may have been in the video, I haven't checked). However, the second―different―Guardian article that I added clearly satisfies WP:V in spades. I note that the material regarding the head of lettuce has been in the article since promotion. All that said was that a livestream had been started. It's ridiculous to mention how something started—by now two years ago—and not mention how it ended. The article now does this. It satisfactorily explains to the reader the results of the livestream, compared to the previous version. I agree that the styling was slightly sloppy: of course the lettuce didn't outlast her, since the lettuce has wilted and truss is, thank goodness, still very much with us, so I have clarified that it was her premiership that was outlasted rater than her.

It's odd to suggest that the article would fail a FAC nomination due to five words of clarification and a formattable citation. WP:FAR is probably the place to find out. Cheers, SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 23:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, SN, which surely doesn't need to be explained as I know you to be brighter than this, is between a disgruntled comment on a Wikipedia talk page versus an uncited public jab at an ex-Prime Minister on what is nominally a featured article. The information is not in the video—the video in our now-departed Grauniad source, I should clarify—and there is nothing ridiculous about mentioning that something happened when the focus is very much on that it did: the point of inclusion is that the lettuce stunt was set up at all. And of course, the problems of the article run much deeper than what has happened today. Fourteen months on from promotion and the article is in a miserable state (which is not to sound ungrateful to those who have helped mitigate that, by the way). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that you removed my question from your talk page, asking why you removed my addition with the edit summary "Already stated", claiming to have moved it here, when your post here has no reference to my question or your edit summary. Perhaps you now realise that your edit summary was a fallacy.

The addition does not "trivialise" anything, nor is it "snide" or "trite". It completes the story of the episode for the benefit of readers who do not - unlike, presumably, those in this discussion - know what happened in the incident.

Of course it should stay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been removed from my talk page. Maybe you should think over whether your addition was an improvement to the article, with engaging prose of a professional standard and citations for verification against high-quality reliable sources two major qualities of a featured article, and of which both were lacking in your addition. And of course, Truss's resignation was already mentioned, and of course, the "story" of the Star lettuce does not need to be "completed" in an article not about the Star lettuce. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: this article has been through a Featured Article review and requires no significant changes unless something glaring has been missed. A trivial sentence about a topic covered more than sufficiently demeans the article's credibility and should be removed Billsmith60 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something glaring was missed. It was fixed. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If adding unverified text counts as "fixing", I suppose. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus (yet) on keeping this in. Should none occur, it'll be removed Billsmith60 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "the lettuce outlasted her [with or without adding 'premiership']" trivialises a FA and should be removed. The previous sentence more than adequately covers the issue Billsmith60 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bill. By nature, this article is an exercise in filtering a very large amount of potential details into a much smaller set of those we consider notable and important (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). That particular detail doesn't make the cut, in my opinion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence removed. No consensus here for keeping it Billsmith60 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]