Talk:2022 City of Edinburgh Council election/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 20:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nominator: 20:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nominator: 20:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arotparaarms (talk · contribs) 18:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Refined Review (27/Jun/24):
 * Review
 * This article has passed every one of the 6 GA requirements and other requisites so it's good there, same with reader experience I did read it for this review and it was fairly well put together, and I had almost all the info I needed. It does need pictures but it's alright. I do have to note that I didn't find any copyright violations since they did a good job of avoiding Wikipedia a lawsuit and for original research I googled the results and compared my findings to the article, I believe they are 0 original research since it was, in fact, accurate to the tee, in fact they used the same Reference that I used to check the article, fair play on using the official government results.
 * Result
 * My verdict stands as it did previously, It is a pass and it deserves it by a long shot the only thing it doesn't have is illustration which, to be fair, can't over come.
 * ✅Pass Arotparaarms (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Before the review
Before I review this I very quickly just want to ask @Stevie fae Scotland why this article hasn't been rated "B" class yet and why you would want to bump it right up to GA status. I won't be considering this for the review but it is weird.

Review
To start, this article is well written and is neutral which is very important when it comes to politics, one thing it should have is pictures of the candidates though I couldn't find any free pictures of any of them so I won't complain.

The article is a good and well in the standard of a good election article though it isn't that big, though considering it is a city election, size isn't the key factor.

Moving on to the information, it has all a reader might need. I won't go into detail on the flaws but the only things that did bother me were the lack of pictures (which to be fair I couldn't find either) and the fact that it isn't the biggest of the lot.

Conclusion
I am a little confused at this point on what I stated previously, why jump straight to GA? I will wait for your reply but my verdict is that on a scale of 1-10, it is a solid 8/10 on the deserving scale, and it meets all of the requirements of a GA (But it does miss point 6, illustration though I will let it slide) I will edit this review and grant GA to the article after your reply. EDIT: I am passing it as I see no reason not to, though I am a little confused nonetheless


 * Hey, thanks so much for the review. I don't tend to update the ratings on pages I've edited as I'm not always sure I've definitely covered everything. I prefer submitting here when I think it's ready for a GA review so that I can get the feedback. I've done this with all the other 2022 election GAs I've worked on. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh alright, seems about right sorry to bother ya
 * Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)