Talk:Electoral district of Perth/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- 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.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- 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.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 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)
- Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Pass/Fail: