Talk:2022 Clackmannanshire Council election/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Stevie fae Scotland and any others who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've made small tweaks myself to save us both time. Just let me know if there are any you object to. No major issues, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No problems, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. 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).	Is the 'Local Elections Archive Project' a reliable source? What makes it so? Addressed What's the case for 'Ballot Box Scotland' being a reliable source? Appears to just be one guy's blog. Addressed Please switch citation templates to cite-news wherever appropriate, such as the Alloa Advertiser cites, BBC, etc. What's the case for the Election Reform society being reliable? As an advocacy group they may be non-neutral. Adressed Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Using the 'Notice of election' as a primary source shades towards OR, but I think it's reasonable. However, if there is a secondary source that describes the form of the election adequately, that would be preferred. Assuming good faith that the nominator will swap it out if a better secondary source is found, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing concerning, hold for manual spot check. Spot check of 5 sources found nothing concerning. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else of significance found. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some minor date/format issues being addressed but nothing major. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Are there no relevant images that could be added, of any of the candidates or party leaders say? Issue discussed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Not sure if you're finished reviewing yet but thought I'd respond to a couple of your queries in the meantime.

• Regarding Ballot Box Scotland and the Local Elections Archive Project, they are both run by experts who have been regularly cited in reliable sources. Ballotbox Scotland is run by Allan Faulds and his recent citations include [1] [2] [3] [4] and [5]. Note that he is referred to as an "elections expert" due to his work in this field. The Local Elections Archive Project is run by Andrew Teale and his work has been cited by both the New Statesman and the BBC.
• I believe that the Election Reform Society, in this case, meets the test at WP:RS for Biased or opinionated sources. The article cited is one of a series which explains how different voting systems work and their proportionality, in this case the single transferrable vote. It's not a campaign post calling for STV to be used in a specific legislature. The Election Reform Society is also non-partisan so, although they campaign within politics to change the voting system, they are neutral politically.
• For images, I have been unable to source any that are definitely licensed for use or free to use. There may be an option to take the councillors' official portraits from the council's website as is the case at 2022 East Ayrshire Council election but I'm unsure of how Crown Copyright affects this so I haven't done so.
• Off the top of my head, I don't have a source to replace the Notice of Election source but I will have a look and see what I can find.

I'll work on the changes you've mentioned but if there's anything else, let me know.

Note: much of the above has been copied from Talk:2022 Argyll and Bute Council election/GA1 as similar queries were made as part of both reviews. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

All sounding good, thanks! Will continue on to the remainder of the review. Full steam ahead! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland the only other thing with the cite-news templates is to switch the name of the paper from "Publisher" to ""Name of publication" so the template will properly italicize it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That should be all the cite news templates updated now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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.