Talk:2022 South Lanarkshire Council election

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 South Lanarkshire Council election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Background

Previous election

• It says the SNP failed to get a majority, so did they form a minority administration or a coalition with another party?

• Spotcheck: Source 4, the Daily Record, says they formed a minority administration

• If there's going to be a prose paragraph telling us all of these details, I don't think a table repeating the results is necessary.

Electoral system

• Thinking this subsection could maybe be moved down, below "Retiring councillors"

Composition

• "who resigned from their respective parties to become independents" Any details on why they resigned?

• Spotcheck: Some of the councillors give clear reasons, others are a bit more vague about it.

Retiring councillors

• No notes

Candidates

• First paragraph is currently uncited, this needs to be fixed.
• "but the UK Independence Party (UKIP)" Why "but"? Note this is a word to watch, so maybe just start a new sentence to talk about UKIP.
• "only fielded half as many candidates (four)" So wait, did they field four candidates in this election or two? It's a bit unclear.

• Spotcheck: They fielded four in this election, might be worth clarifying that a bit, rather than just having it in brackets.

Controversies

• No notes

Results

• No notes

Aftermath

• No notes

Lead and infobox

• Could be a comma after 5 May 2022.
• If only Robert Brown has an image available, it might be worth just removing the images fields in order to slim the infobox down a bit.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Very informative article about a local election I didn't know much about. Well-written and put-together, for the most part.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Only a couple very minor grammatical quibbles here and there. Try and make sure longer sentences are broken up a bit.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Only one case of a word to watch, very easily dealt with.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   A couple of the citations are incomplete, missing publication and access dates. Make sure these are filled out.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All citations are either from reliable publications or official election channels. I will note that the Daily Record is affiliated with Scottish Labour, so double-check to make sure no editorial bias has made its way in from there.

   C. It contains no original research:

   One of the paragraphs is currently uncited. Fully cited, spotchecks reveal no clear OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No obvious copyvio or plagiarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There's one or two context holes, but they're easily filled.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Broadly neutral, any non-neutral statements are properly attributed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Last reversions occurred in May 2022, which is to be expected during an election.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Only image is licensed through the Open Government License

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I'm slightly concerned that the inclusion of only one image in the infobox may lean towards being undue, but it's certainly relevant to the subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Holding for now. The lack of citations for the one paragraph in the candidates section is the only policy-based thing holding it back, the rest of my notes are relatively minor. Ping me when you've addressed this and I'll be happy to pass this article. Nice work. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Thanks for reviewing the article, it's very much appreciated. Your feedback was pretty much what I was expecting as I had based this on another GA. I've worked through most of your comments, I have a couple of questions though (nothing major).

• Re- images. I know the council publish photos of the councillors on their website and these have been used elsewhere on Wikipedia but I'm not 100 per cent sure on the copyright/fair use reasoning behind it. The Robert Brown image is a Scottish Government image so is covered by Crown Copyright, I don't know if this extends to local councils though. Any advice you have on that would be appreciated.
• Citations, I've updated access-dates (opened them to check them and added todays date). However, I don't know the publication date for all of them as it does not appear on the website. Regarding source 9, what should the access-date be? I can't check the original as it doesn't exist anymore so is it still today as I checked the archived version?
• Most of the Daily Record sources weren't actually published by the Daily Record. The way Reach Plc works in Scotland, all the local newspaper websites were subsumed into the main Daily Record website a good few years ago so they were actually published by the Hamilton Advertiser, East Kilbride News and Rutherglen Reformer. Lanarkshire Live has also been part of the Lanarkshire papers group in the last couple of years. Essentially, they are be editorially independent of the Daily Record even though they are published on the same website.

Thanks again, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No bother at all! As to your questions:

1. South Lanarkshire council website appears to suggest these images are copy-written, so you may have to contact them directly if you want authorisation to use the images for Wikipedia.
2. Listing today as the access date is fine for archived copies, I'm pretty sure. If there's no publication date available, then don't worry about that part.
3. Oh that's interesting, I had no idea! Thanks for letting me know.

With all my concerns addressed, I'd be happy to pass this review now. Cheers for taking the time! Feel free to update me if you see any progress on councillor images, I'd be curious to see how that works out. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)