Talk:2022 South Ayrshire Council 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 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)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(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.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is to a high standard, no grammatical or syntactical errors that I can see.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	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
(c) (original research)	No WP:OR found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyvio or plagiarism. Direct quotes are sourced.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

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
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No images.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	All good!

Discussion

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

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 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the presenting of candidates by the Scottish Family and Alba Party in the 2022 South Ayrshire Council election is the first time they've ever done so in a South Ayrshire council election? Source: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/scottish-council-elections-2022-south-26596464
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Soony Saad

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.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - I'm wary of accepting Daily Record as a reliable source, given its ties to the Daily Mirror (listed as questionable at RSP) and the political nature of this article's topic.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Daily Record does not mention Scottish Family at all, nor does it mention that it was the first for Alba Party.
• Interesting: - 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)

Withdrawing as I've raised concerns about the review on the GAN talk page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)