Talk:2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 04:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Will be reviewing this article! Expect comments in 10am UTC. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Well-written - The article has some problems relating grammar. The article passes the MoS guide for lead sections, layout, and words to watch.

• Lead - Change word, "Elections to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar" to "Elections of (or for) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar".
• Lead - Add words, "using single transferable vote" to "using the single transferable vote system".
• Lead - Add comma, "multiple candidates are elected in each ward and voters" to "multiple candidates are elected in each ward, and voters".
• Boundary changes - Remove unnecesary dash, "The act allowed for single-" to "The act allowed for single".
• Controversy - Change wording, "Both are dual-member", to "Both were dual-member".
• Controversy - Add comma, "wards and only one person stood for election in each", to "wards, and only one person stood for election in each".
• Controversy - Change wording, "the number of candidates was not enough", to "the number of candidates were not enough".
• Controversy - Add comma, "just three council wards were uncontested but", to "just three council wards were uncontested, but".
• Controversy - Add word, "and the Single transferable vote" to "and the Single transferable vote system".
• An Taobh Siar agus Nis - Change wording, "the number of councillors elected was reduced" to "the number of councillors elected were reduced".
• Entirety of ward results - Change "The SNP" to "SNP", (needs second opinion).
• Entirety of ward results - Change "previous election while" to "previous election, while".
• Sgìre an Rubha - Change wording, "the number of councillors elected was" to "the number of councillors elected were".

2. Verifiable with no original research - Passes the layout guideline for appendices, and has no copyright violations (has a high percentage in Earwig but ignored because of ward names).
2b. Source Spotcheck -

• Background (Previous election): The only source cited here is a election result page, good to go.
• Background (Electoral system): I see one source, which is a "Notice of elections" page by the local government, good to go.
• Background (Composition): 4 sources cited here, 3 of them are independent news sources and one of them is a page by the local government, good to go.
• Background (Retiring councilors): 2 sources cited, with both of them being election websites, I only see one of the councilors getting mentioned, and one of the councilors are indirectly mentioned, needs another source stating that they are going to retire.
• Background (Boundary changes): One source, which is a secondary source, good to go.
• Background (Candidates): All references are good to go.
• Background (Controversy): All references are cited inline and good to go.
• Results: All sources stated are good to go, mostly about election results and the systems behind it.
• Ward results: Most of the sources are about election results, good to go.
• Aftermath: All of the sources are correct and good to go.

2c. No original research -

• Background - None of the sentences need sources.
• Results - Like background, none of the sentences need sources.
• Ward results - All of the prose and sentences need sourcing.
• Aftermath - None of the sentences need references.

3. Broad - Everything is okay except the campaign part, there is no subsection about the campaigning for the election.
4. Neutral - No seen biased words in the article, good to go.
5. Stable - Every edit is edited by the nominator, good to go.
6. Illustrated - Needs more images, the only image is a result image (the creator's own work).
Apologies, but I will have to fail this, all of the fixing may take more than a few days. Re-nominate if the article is better again. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:20, 18 July 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.

Hello, thanks for the review. I hope you don't mind me adding a few thoughts here. I'm naturally disappointed that you've decided to fail the article as I don't believe it would take long to resolve any issues. I am confused at some comments though.

• The dash after single, I understand why you're bringing that up. It is grammatically correct though as it's shortened from single-member [1]
• The are/were thing, those two wards still exist. They won't stop existing until, at the earliest, the next boundary review which isn't due to happen until after the 2027 elections so they will still be in use until at least 2032. They are things, not were.
• Similar with was/were. A number is one thing not multiple things so was is correct when talking about the number of somethings.
• Retiring councillors, a lot don't have a source which explicitly says "Cllr x is retiring". The sources I've provided show that each councillor was elected at the previous election and is not standing in this one. Retiring/standing down/not standing are used reasonably interchangeably in this sense.
• The only reason there are no sources in the lead is because everything is sourced elsewhere in the article (see MOS:LEAD). If there is something controversial or a direct quotation in the lead that you feel needs a citation, I'd be happy to add one but I don't think it's needed.
• There are no freely available images that I am aware of to use here. Some councils make use of the Open Government Licence so photos can be taken from their websites, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar do not.

I'll work on the rest of your comments before re-nominating. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about archiving instantly, anyway, all of these points are valid, but you can fix the other points. I would still have to fail this due to citation and missing-section issues.

Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)