Talk:2022 East Ayrshire Council election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 12:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevie fae Scotland, I am going to be reviewing this article. I will get it done as soon as possible, at the latest by the end of the weekend. At first glance I think it is probably at or close to good article status. I may be able to pass it straight away or put in hold with some things to work on.--Llewee (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some concerns about aftermath section... "The party had been worried they would lose control of the council ..." -make clear this section is political analysis start with something like "Kevin Dyson of the Daily Record wrote soon after the election that the party..." Change "banded together" to something more formal e.g "voted together"--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, all dealt with.--Llewee (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*The second and third sentence of lead should be in the background section of the article under a heading like "process" or "electoral system." Their doesn't need to be citations in the heading.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ditto--Llewee (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A lot of sources are from the council directly and one is from the BBC. A few are from the Daily Record. The reliability of the daily record in particular has never been discussed but its sister paper has not been depreciated and is probably fine for uncontroversial content.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	*The source for the table in the "previous election" section doesn't include percentages. The retiring councillors' section doesn't include any sources. The source for the candidates section (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/east-ayrshire-council-elections-2022-26597416) gives information on the 2022 candidates but does not include the 2017 candidate numbers which are included in section. I would recommend finding a citation for these numbers possibly a similar article from a few years ago. The details of the STV voting system included in the results section needs to be cited.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] Now all sorted out--Llewee (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyright detector found a very low level of alignment between the page and some news articles on the topic.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Potential concerns discussed earlier in review--Llewee (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are on a government licence--Llewee (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Would it be possible to get newer images? It's not essential but these pictures are rather old and there seems to be more recent images on the council website which would presumably be under the same licence.--Llewee (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Update: All dealt with. Apologies, Stevie fae Scotland I should have checked back sooner. --Llewee (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing. I should get time this weekend to work on your recommendations. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tell me when you'd like me to have another look at it.--Llewee (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted 1a and 1b as well as most of 2c (I couldn't find a similar article from 2017 but I did find a list with all the candidates standing in 2017).

Regarding sources for STV, I have found two articles online which explain STV ([1] and [2]) but I am not sure they will source exactly what it is that needs to be sourced. I wonder then if it would be better to perhaps rephrase (happy to listen to any suggested wording) and use these sources?

Regarding the photos, I don't know how the government licence works with local councils so I wouldn't be comfortable just taking them from the council's website. They do have updated photos (although, a lot if them aren't very flattering) [3]. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK Stevie fae Scotland quick update, I've signed of 1a and b. I don't mind about the photos I just thought it would be a helpful change if possible. I've read through the sources on STV and the idea it has an element of proportionality is source able as is the statement that vote totals given are first preferences. The issue is it is hard to source how the percentages are calculated and how that is linked to the degree of proportionality. Is the way the results are calculated here based on the way any official sources calculate them?--Llewee (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way STV works, the first preference percentages aren't always linked to the proportionality. Party A + Party B could be most popular on first preferences but Party C might get more seats because they had far more second and third preferences. 2022 North Ayrshire Council election is a good example as Labour got more first preferences than Conservative but it was the opposite way round for number of seats. The first preference percentages give an idea of how strong a party's support is and this can be used to compare with first past the post (we wouldn't do that here though as they will never be a direct comparison). I have found a source for the percentages ([4]) but I will need to double check them all now as the numbers are slightly different. I had previously just added them up from the results of each individual ward so I may have made an error. I will have time to check this once I get home from work tonight. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the numbers in line with the source. I may have slightly misunderstood the purpose in the explainer below the results table as well. The reason it is compared to the last election in 2017 and not the composition at dissolution is because by-elections held in the interim may only elect one person which would remove the proportional element from it. For example, see Fortissat which elected two Labour councillors in 2017 but had three at dissolution as the party won both by-elections held in 2017 and 2021. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llewee, just wanted to know what was happening. I think I have sorted everything you've pointed out but if there is anything further, do let me know. Thanks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]