Talk:2023 Aston by-election/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: GraziePrego (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll get to this soon. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DeadlyRampage26, thank you for taking on this review :) I think I've fixed the first problem you identified, of the tense being wrong in a few places. GraziePrego (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. I'll do a few more of these boxes below tonight DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 08:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced source 53 with one from the party. GraziePrego (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeadlyRampage26, the details about Tudge in the background section is directly relevant to the by-election. The article would be worse off without it and it should probably stay. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @GraziePrego I just wanted to ask whether the table in the 2022 election section is really needed, especially given it is the 2022 section? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I’ll move it to the top of the “background” section, it’ll make more sense there :) GraziePrego (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thankyou. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps move it to the bottom of the background section as you've ended up with a large section of whitespace. TarnishedPath^talk 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GraziePrego what do you think of my last couple of edits? TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both very helpful edits, thank you @TarnishedPath :) GraziePrego (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @DeadlyRampage26! GraziePrego (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Have a good night! DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (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.	It looks compliant for the most part, however, I've noticed a few cases where certain terms need to be switched to past tense instead of present. Key dates for example would be a good place to start. Problems fixed by nominator
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies for the most part. However, after having a look at the Words to Watch guidelines, I think that 'unpopularity' and 'unpopular' (used a few times) might violate those guidelines. Maybe adding some context might help, especially as the 'unpopular' label is directed solely towards the Liberal candidate. Problems fixed by nominator
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Complies. Added reflist template for better structure.
	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).	Passed. I would however recommend that the final source, source 53, be either removed or alternated as there was a ruling at some point that both opinion pieces and other news from Sky News be viewed as unreliable. Problems fixed by nominator
	2c. it contains no original research.	Passed. There is no original research other than that required with regards to vote numbers and swings etc.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Passed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Absolutely.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	For the most part, it passes. However, I think that we have a bit too much details on Tudge's term as a minister and controversies that could be better fit on his own article. I think that if you trim some of the extraneous detail down, the article would be better for it. Recommended changes voted down
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Just about passes, however attending to recommendations of 3b would strengthen this.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Passed.
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.	Passed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Absolutely.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations GraziePrego! Great work!