Talk:Electoral district of Perth/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)