Talk:Beirut I/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 11:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to quickfail this review as the article is a long way from meeting the broadness criteria and the well written criteria. The sections do no flow well from one to the other, making for bad writing. Moreover, the article suffers from recentism. Some of my concerns are listed below.

Good article criteria

Well written

The lead doesn't really go over the history of the electoral district. Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead says "quartiers (neighbourhoods)", but the body says "neighbourhoods (quartiers)". There is an inconsistency as to which is in brackets. Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "list"? Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article is formed from a merger of two other articles, and this has caused a problem with the article's structure. The 1960–1972 and 2009 sections begin with very similar sentences. The 2009 sentence does not flow well from the rest of the article before it. I think this needs rework. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sectioning of the article needs to be reworked as well. Why is 1960–1972 in one section, but 2009, 2018 and 2022 in separate sections. It seems like recentism to me. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for more information on the Lebanese electoral system, see Elections in Lebanon. That would work better as a footnote instead. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the Civil War, a new set-up of constituencies was used ahead of the 1992 general election abolishing the 1960 Election Law constituencies. It could be specifically stated that Beirut I was abolished. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

No comment on this. I did not check most sources. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

I think this article suffers from recentism. For the 2009 and onwards elections, the article shows the tally received by each winner. That is not the case for the earlier elections. Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, the sections on the pre-2009 elections are small, just a few sentences each. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

General

There is an inconsistency between the various tables. Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do those articles in the see also section need to be there? Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]