Jump to content

Talk:2022 Highland Council election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The 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)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.