Talk:Olivia Savvas

Hi Peacemaker67, could you please tell me what your concern is with my edit? Thank you CountryLad (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Your edit summary said "Rewrote introduction to be more concise and focus on the things that make Savvas notable. Existing introduction refers to many unnotable things such as that she grew up in NE Adelaide. Personal life section slightly restructured to make more logical and readable. Career section edited to remove repetition of what has already been said". For starters, a lead or introduction is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article, not just about why a person is notable. That is established in the first sentence. She is a state politician and that is why she is notable. How she became one is an important part of the article, and should be in the lead. The fact that she grew up where she is now the MP is highly relevant context, many politicians are not from the area they now represent. That is also why the result of the election is there, context. The context of her win is provided by the statement of Green, that the seat generally follows the winner of the state election. Basic details of her background are also relevant to the lead, and that is why the second para is there. You also removed her full name from the first sentence of the Personal life and career section. Everything in an article needs to be in the body, the lead is just a summary of what follows. Her full name is sourced to the ABC. The detail of Green's statement about the seat trend needs to be in the body because it is not sourced in the lead, and the lead is just a summary of the body, as I've already stated. The same goes for the bit about her age at election. Please read MOS:LEAD for more details on why we usually only footnote things in the lead if they are likely to be challenged, and on the points I've made about the lead above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)