Talk:Electoral district of Perth/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Arsenikk in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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