Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Albert by-election, 2009/archive1

Mount Albert by-election, 2009
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, in my opinion, it has most of the information it can include now, and would like tips to raise the class of the article. One thing I have thought about is merging sections 4.12, 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15. Thanks, Adabow  ( talk )  03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:- The article looks to be in a very incomplete state, with mini-banners indicating areas still being developed. It seems somewhat premature to carry out a full review at this stage, but I can offer some suggestions on what needs to be done.
 * When the text is complete it will be necessary to rewrite the lead as a summary of the whole article
 * Overall structure needs a rethink. At the moment there is far too much emphasis on the candidates and far too little on the election campaign itself. Information is scattered about the article in seemingly random fashion; this needs to be properly organised. You also need to get rid of the mini-lists and bullet-points.
 * More background information would be helpful. For example it would be useful to know the numbers of parliamentary seats held by the parties at the time of the by-election. ✅ Adabow  ( talk )  10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidate information should be summarised much more succinctly. The many minor/fringe candidates aren't worth the space you give them second half done  Adabow  ( talk )  09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a Campaign section, which summarises the main events of the by-election campaign from the close of nominations to polling day. Opinion poll information could be included here, at least so far as the main parties are concerned. The two polls that you cite are not particularly helpful, since no dates are given. Also information on debates, and on any other activities of the main candidates
 * I'd suggest that the logical sequence of sections in the article should be something like:
 * Background
 * Candidates
 * Issues
 * Campaign
 * Result
 * Aftermath
 * Some of your online references lack access dates. These dates should be in a single consistent format - at the moment two different formats are used. ✅ Adabow  ( talk )  09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Swing: this is the average movement in percentage votes between two parties. In this election Labour's vote rose by 4.02%, National's fell by 11.93. That's a swing to Labour from National of 7.97% (average of + 4.02 and -11.93). ❌ - See this discussion. Adabow  ( talk )  09:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you complete the article's development, and then bring it back for a full review. I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, so if you have queries arising from this review, please use my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)