Talk:Electoral district of Perth/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead is somewhat short. I would have preferred two paragraphs (what is there is good, but it is somewhat sparse). In particular, I would like to see more about the historical development and the demographics. Otherwise well written. I did a small copyedit, and chose to wikilink somewhat more.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The second half of the first paragraph of "demographics" seems to be missing a referenence. With it being a statistics dump, it really must be sourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All good. I was wondering if the article would be a little less tame if 1) There was an image of John Hyde, and/or other notable MLAs 2) There was some sort of picture of the legislative assembly and/or Perth CBD. These are not GA criteria (the maps makes it meet them), but just suggestions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well written article; only the lack of broader lead and a reference is hindering it from being GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)