Talk:2011 New Zealand Labour Party leadership election/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment[edit]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well-sourced
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addressed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	No issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary[edit]

Firstly, I'd like to apologise to you for having to wait almost three months to get a GA review. I hope that you're still present on Wikipedia and that next review is conducted in a briefer timespan. With regard to the article, some comments are below:--LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it to be very well-sourced and well-written.
I feel that the article could mention slightly more the issues that were contested, as the only reference I could find related to the candidate presenting a 'fresh face'.
I don't feel that it's necessary to mention the 2013 issue in the lede, or at all in the article, as I feel resigning in 2013 is a separate issue not related to the 2011 campaign.
I have completed a check for close-paraphrasing (not present) and sources (present and accurately reflected in-text).
There do not appear to be any other issues that would prevent nomination.

Thank you for the review, and sorry for taking so long to respond. I have removed details about the 2013 election and added a see also link. I searched and searched for policy/issues discussed, and unfortunately I only managed to find one interview transcript. Adabow (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Thanks for your edits. I feel this article meets the GA criteria, is readable, well-sourced, and interesting to read (an additional benefit!). I have made all the relevant changes and wish you well in your wiki-travels. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]