Jump to content

Talk:2022 South Ayrshire Council election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 South Ayrshire Council election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Prose is to a high standard, no grammatical or syntactical errors that I can see. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) References are varied, including BBC, local news, and direct information from the council. All seem to be reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No WP:OR found. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyvio or plagiarism. Direct quotes are sourced. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) A tiny bit more detail about the aftermath would potentially be appreciated, but information that is present is all on topic. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Neutral. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No images. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass All good!

Discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk02:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Stevie fae Scotland (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2022 South Ayrshire Council election; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Daily Record does not mention Scottish Family at all, nor does it mention that it was the first for Alba Party.
  • Interesting: No - As it stands, it's quite boring and wordy. The hook can be trimmed to simply state that it was the first with those parties ("presenting of candidates" is unclear compared to "fielded" as the article prose uses), but it's still not hooky.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: SounderBruce 01:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing as I've raised concerns about the review on the GAN talk page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.