2022 North Lanarkshire Council election is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by Stevie fae Scotland (talk) at 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: North Lanarkshire Council election |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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). |
| |
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 |
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)
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search