Talk:2023 Aston by-election/GA1
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: GraziePrego (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'll get to this soon. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @DeadlyRampage26, thank you for taking on this review :) I think I've fixed the first problem you identified, of the tense being wrong in a few places. GraziePrego (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks man. I'll do a few more of these boxes below tonight DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 08:51, 6 January 2025 (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. |
It looks compliant for the most part, however, I've noticed a few cases where certain terms need to be switched to past tense instead of present. Key dates for example would be a good place to start. Problems fixed by nominator |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Complies for the most part. However, after having a look at the Words to Watch guidelines, I think that 'unpopularity' and 'unpopular' (used a few times) might violate those guidelines. Maybe adding some context might help, especially as the 'unpopular' label is directed solely towards the Liberal candidate. Problems fixed by nominator |
| 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. |
Complies. Added reflist template for better structure. |
|
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). |
Passed. I would however recommend that the final source, source 53, be either removed or alternated as there was a ruling at some point that both opinion pieces and other news from Sky News be viewed as unreliable. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. |
Passed. There is no original research other than that required with regards to vote numbers and swings etc. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Passed. |
| 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. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |