Talk:2022 North Lanarkshire 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

Nominator: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:26, 9 July 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.	a few suggestions below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I strongly recommend wikilinking to website/publisher names in the references. As a non-local, some confused me (e.g. at first I thought STV (TV channel) was a single transferable vote site) and it makes the reliability of sources more credible to the casual reader.
	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).	The number of registered voters and turnout are given in the infobox, but these are not mentioned in the body. Is there a source for these figures? Is Andrew Teale a reliable source? It looks to be self-published, but is he an established and reliable subject-matter source? Similarly, is localcouncils.co.uk reliable? Again, for ballotbox.scot. It looks to be self published Electoral Reform Society is an advocacy group. The content that the reference is supporting is not contentious, but I recommend looking for an alternative source, if possible.
	2c. it contains no original research.	some content unsupported by references. Assuming an oversight, rather than OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	reworded what looked to be a close paraphrase from source
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold, pending responses to verifiability concerns

Prose review

• "The Greens named the same number of candidates as they at the previous election, contesting seven of the 21 wards." - You mention the number of candidates remaining the same without actually stating the number.
• Are the ward results in some sort of geographic order? That's fine if so (and I see it's the same order as the 2017 elections article), but I would have thought alphabetical order to be more natural.
• Fortissat result: "Labour (2) and the SNP (1) retained the seats they had won at the previous election while the BUP gained a seat from the Conservatives." In the tables, the British Unionist Party is shortened to British Unionist, not BUP. Can we make these consistent? (I'll leave to you to decide which is more appropriate)

Reference spot check

• Ref 2 N doesn't support "The election used the 21 wards created following the fifth statutory review of electoral arrangements conducted by Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland in 2016, with 77 councillors elected"
• Ref 6 = paywalled
• Ref 7  Verified
• Ref 8  Verified
• Ref 14 N doesn't support "two Labour gains from the SNP"
• Ref 82 N The first preference percentage values for the Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig by-election differ from the source. How have these percentages been calculated?

Comment

I'll place the review on hold while @Stevie fae Scotland: considers my comments about content not supported by citations. Let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. Adabow (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adabow: Hey, thanks for the review. It's been a busy few days for me but I should get a chance early next week to go through everything. Meantime, a few previous reviews asked about some of the sources you have and I explained why they are reliable there so feel free to have a look (eg- Talk:2022 Glasgow City Council election/GA1). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adabow: My plans for this evening were cancelled (hey ho) so thought I'd just get this done. Points above that you've raised are answered below:

• Registered voters and turnout in the infobox has no direct source, it's a routine calculation from the sources for each ward which detail the total electorate and total votes cast.
• Local Elections Archive Project and Ballot Box Scotland are answered in the Glasgow review I've highlighted.
• Local Councils is a reliable source but I don't tend to use it because the information is normally available elsewhere in a source which is easier to prove its reliability (eg- a newspaper). This is unfortunately the 1 in 100 occasion where I don't have another source for it. There are newspaper sources available for the Angela Feeney and Willie Doolan resignations (happy to add these) but not the Gillian Finnan one. There may be an archived version of the council's website showing the change in affiliation which could be used but it won't say that she resigned.
• The Electoral Reform Society source was added based on a previous review for a different council (see- Talk:2022 East Ayrshire Council election/GA1). As it is cited alongside a neutral source, I don't see an issue.
• Fixed the issues in the prose review. I don't know if the order is geographic or not but it is the same order as the report which established the current electoral arrangements.
• Ref 2 now supported by additional ref. Ref 14 (now 16) is also supported by an additional source (the SNP councillor had resigned to sit as an independent so it's technically a gain from the SNP). I did not use Ref 82 (now 84) to fill out the table, I used Refs 85 and 86 (prev 83 and 84). The difference in the percentages is whether or not spoilt ballots are included. I've checked a couple of other tables and it looks like the percentages don't include spoilt ballots so I've updated this to make them all consistent.

Hope that covers everything but if there is anything else, let me know. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Stevie, the article looks great. I did a couple of further spot checks and found no issues. It might be useful to include the figures for registered voters and turnout in the summary table, but interestingly it seems that the {{Election summary}} series doesn't have a template for that. Happy to pass the article. Adabow (talk) 21:47, 12 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.