Talk:2022 Highland Council election
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Chiswick Chap in topic GA Review
2022 Highland Council election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 19, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editThe 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Highland Council election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
edit- The one obvious thing I don't see is a map of the Highland Council area, divided into wards. Obviously this can't be mandatory but it would certainly be nice.
- I looked for a link to Highland Council to find a map, and was surprised not to find a link.
- When I did arrive at Highland (council area) I saw a map of the whole area, but not of the wards, which seems a serious omission in its case, but that isn't this GAN's concern.
Images
edit- Two images from Commons. One might question the value of figuring one out of six political parties but since this is part of a system I guess it's acceptable.
Sources
edit- It's not ideal having a pair of sources with fractionally different titles, both from Highland Council, for every ward; it would certainly be reasonable, and would reduce clutter both in the text and in the reflist, if these were grouped as one ref for each ward. Actually having refs 29..72 (almost) all of that kind makes me wonder if we shouldn't have a single ref, or a literal table of HC refs, as it stretches Wikipedia's extremely text-based system of refs almost to breaking point.... but there it is, it works I guess.
- Spot-checks all pass.
Summary
edit- The article provides admirably clear coverage of the details and machinery of its subject, and presents the results plainly. It is appropriately illustrated, within the limitations of Commons, and is fully-cited. I don't have any issue with the text (even with the use of the passive voice, which is evidently conventional in this field). Accordingly I'm now passing this as a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 19 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.