Talk:2013 Christchurch mayoral election

Christchurch mayoral election, 2013

If this page was last up-dated on 7 September 2013, why are only two candidates named? E.g. why is Hugo Kristinsson not listed?

These are the current candidates for Christchurch City Mayor: •Blair Anderson (Another MildGreen Initiative) •Victor Cattermole (Independent) •Kyle Chapman (The Resistance Party) •Lianne Dalziel (One City Together) •Tubby Hansen (Economic Euthenics) •Sammy Harris (Independent) •Hugo Kristinsson •Paul Lonsdale (Independent) •Robin McCarthy (Independent) •Brad Maxwell (Independent) •Rik Tindall (Independent) •Peter Wakeman (Independent)

candidateprofiles (Accessed 8 Sept 2013) Paddy-Chch (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't edit the talk page; add the names to the article! Schwede66 04:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

This page has been put together by the ChCh Press as part of their anti democratic strategy to manipulate the voting public of Christchurch. They monitor it daily to make sure the truth about the top two contenders is never told. People should reject the ChCh Press and reject all the companies that advertise in the Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.25.52 (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, isn't that an interesting suggestion? Let's analyse this. Firstly, it's a simple matter of checking the edit history of this article to see who is doing most of the editing, and what we find is that it's Schwede66 (that's me). So, is Schwede66 working for The Press? It shouldn't be too onerous to find out what an editor's contribution history is and this page lists it all - a good 250 articles created on New Zealand political history, biographies, heritage buildings, some Christchurch topics, and some current events. So I'm The Press - yeah, right.

So let's see who is hiding behind the 124.197.25.52 IP address. A check of the user contributions reveals an August 2013 edit of the autobiography of Victor Cattermole, and four edits of this article regarding content of Victor Cattermole, one of the mayoral candidates, with an attempt to change the content (sourced from earlier editions of The Press) from something that is somewhat critical of his actions (but fully referenced) to something which is entirely positive but unreferenced. Well, Wikipedia doesn't work like that - it's an encyclopedia and content is supposed to be referenced. But there is a high likelihood that the anonymous editor is either Victor Cattermole, or acting on his behalf.

What can we conclude from this? The accusation of me working for The Press is entirely inconsistent with my edit history. It would have been extremely easy to find that out, and the editor thus shows that he is not capable of doing even the most basic of analysis. The accusation also demonstrates a belief in conspiracy theories. So if this is indeed Victor Cattermole himself, we can thus be grateful that opinion polls have him in a distant third position. Schwede66 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you remove the information regarding Dalziel with respects the the criminal charges and child molestation matters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.25.52 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Additions need to be in line with Wikipedia policy and what is most relevant here is that, given we are dealing with BLPs (biographies of living people), anything that is controversial needs to be supported by a reliable source. Schwede66 04:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable so I am putting you on notice that I am notifying the Press Council and intending to pursue defamation procedings against you if you continue to post slanderous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.25.52 (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Press is considered a reliable source. Since you have chosen to take legal action, you may not continue to edit Wikipedia per WP:NLT until this matter is resolved. Accordingly, I have blocked your IP address from editing.-gadfium 19:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christchurch mayoral election, 2013/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mattbuck (talk · contribs) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will add comments first, then add status after.

• Lead section

• This to me seems overly detailed - I don't think it's especially relevant here as to how the candidates ended up being candidates, merely that they were (or in the mayor's case were not), and what their jobs at the time were.
• The vote tally paragraph needs a bit of rewording. I suggest:

  Dalziel won the election with 71% of the vote and a margin of just under 50,000 votes, with Lonsdale in second place. Lonsdale also stood for election as a city councillor, a position he won. The third placed mayoral candidate received just over 1,000 votes. Dalziel and the new council were sworn in on 24 October.

• Candidates

• This whole section is a bit of a mess. You switch between examining individual candidates and providing an overall history. Go with the history route, and try to keep things chronological - it makes no sense to talk about Parker's candidacy, then say he withdrew, and then in the next sentence say that he was challenged by someone.

Y There was a sentence in there that was misplaced, and I have removed it. It should now make more sense and be chronological. Let me know if it's not quite there yet. Schwede66 06:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• You mentioned The Press being the local newspaper in the lead, but you should really do it here as well.

Y Done. Schwede66 06:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• You regularly use the present tense, eg "Dalziel will challenge Parker". Please change this to the past tense.

Y I've changed everything to past tense ("will challenge" is future tense, by the way). Schwede66 06:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• You switch between "20 April 2013" and "20 April". Go with 2013 for the first event, and then, if you're going chronologically, you need never state 2013 again.

Y I've done as you've suggested, but it didn't look quite right to me. Especially in the first part, it gives a lot of background that mentions years prior to 2012. To overcome this and to prevent confusion, I have inserted sub-headings ("2012 and earlier" and "2013"). See what you think of that. Schwede66 06:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know why you linked Maurice Carter as there is no such article.

N The link is there because he is notable; see Wikipedia:Red link. As an aside, there used to be a lot more redlinks in this articles, but they have all since turned blue, and whilst I will eventually write an article for every redlink that I create, I didn't start any of these articles, but they were done by other editors. Schwede66 05:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Avoid brackets where possible - if the information is relevant it can be done without brackets, if it isn't relevant it can be removed.

Y Done. Schwede66 08:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• List of candidates

• I don't see why someone not talking to a newspaper is noteworthy.

B I have amended the text trying to explain why that is noteworthy without giving it the appearance of original research. But if you can't see why this is noteworthy, the average reader won't be able to see it either, so it obviously does need that explanation. Please let me know if you have further thoughts on this. Schwede66 08:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• ...involved with several far-right organisations, for example... - for example implies what follows is a far right organisation, but not necessarily one that Chapman had any relationship with. Try using "including" instead.

Y Done. Schwede66 08:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please wikilink all candidates who have their own articles.

Y Just confirming that only 2 of the 12 candidates have their own article, and both Dalziel and Chapman are wikilinked. Schwede66 08:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Liking Christmas decorations is not noteworthy.

? I've toned this down and it no longer talks about his "obsession with Christmas decorations". This is noteworthy, though, as that is what he is known for! I don't know how common it is where you live that people have $50k worth of Christmas decorations, but in New Zealand, that is a rather rare thing, or shall I say odd? Schwede66 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Opinion polls

• Were only 3 polls done? Were there no polls by a second publication?

Y Yes, I'm pretty certain that we've only had 3 polls. New Zealand is, population-wise, a tiny country, and we only have one major newspaper in Christchurch. Our second newspaper, The Star, is a free community newspaper and whilst I don't get to see it very often, they wouldn't be able to afford a scientific poll. Other main newspapers are based in other centres (Dunedin, Wellington, Auckland), and whilst some of the smaller centres are closer to Christchurch, they don't have Christchurch readership. I can only think that TV1 or TV3 news would have an interest in conducting a poll, but I've never seen them do that for a mayoral election. Having just googled this topic, I see that The Press had an article about various unscientific polls back in June. Schwede66 09:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't really see the value of a table here when there are so few results to be had, and they are summarised above.

N I disagree. Different people prefer to take in information in different ways. Whilst it is essential to have this in prose, I for one find it much easier to glance over the table to take the information in. In my opinion, there is value to have the table as well as prose, even if we've only had 3 polls. Schwede66 09:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Results

• When did the election actually happen?

Y Ah, good question. I have added a new section that deals with timeline, voting system, what was voted on, etc. Schwede66 18:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, the article states that all elections were done by postal ballot, and there's a last day for postal ballot enrollment listed, but there's also another last day for enrollment? Also when it says voting closes at noon, if all postal it should probably say that postal ballots had to be received by then. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• What was the turnout as a percentage of eligible voters? Was this higher or lower than before?

Y Again, a good question. I have added a section to the article. Schwede66 08:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• More commentary would be useful here.

Y As you suggested, I have expanded the results commentary. The really interesting part was the election of councillors, where the results were described as an 'unprecedented cleanout'. Basically, everybody who had previously associated themselves with Parker did not make it back to the council table, with the exception of councillor Jamie Gough who survived this cleanout. It is related to the Parker regime, but it could be argued that it shouldn't be part of the mayoral election article, which is why I haven't included it here. Let me know if you think otherwise. Schwede66 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The comment about Lansdown Lonsdale needs to be either expanded upon or moved above the table.

Y Done. Schwede66 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• References

• There are a lot of references, but they are inconsistent in what information they give. Specifically all your references to The Press. In some you give publisher, some you don't. Some you wikilink, some you don't. Some you note the location, some you don't. Author is also missing in several, as are links. Given you have linked most of these, it must surely be possible to link to the other articles?

• Comment I'll check all the refs for achieving as much consistency as possible, but once done, it won't meet all that you've been asking for. The Press does not put all of its articles online. Many articles give an author, but some don't. But I'll see what I can do, and I'll check each and every one. Schwede66 05:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  That's fair enough, but they can at least all be wikilinked, have location and publisher. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• In Template:Cite news, it states about the 'publisher' parameter that it is "not normally included for periodicals." I'll make sure that I'll use it consistently with all cite web templates where a publisher can be identified. Schwede66 05:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Sources should now be consistent in their markup. Schwede66 10:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some more non-Press references would be good.

? The Press is part of the Fairfax media group (Timaru Herald and stuff.co.nz also belong to it, apart from many others) and I've counted 49 sources that come from Fairfax, and 7 sources that come from other media organisations. Whilst that is a big ratio, one should know that there are only two newspapers in Christchurch: The Press and The Star. I don't get to read the latter, it's only a community newspaper these days, and their articles aren't online (at least not in a useful way). So we are really dealing with one dominant player, and other media organisations not from Christchurch who take much less interest. I suggest that seven sources not from Fairfax isn't too bad. If you feel that it's not good enough, please say so and I shall go digging. Schwede66 10:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If the press is dominated like that, then that's reasonable enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Many of the links are dead. For instance references 32, 36, 53.

Y Lots more than just those three were dead! I never knew how many articles that go online get taken off again; not sure why they would do that. Either way, I found an archiveURL for each and every one of them. Schwede66 10:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

While these comments are helpful, I'd like to point out that consistent formatting and live URLs are not required for GA. See WP:GACN and WP:DEADLINK. Info should never be removed just because a link has rotted. Adabow (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• General comments

• From reading this, it seems like it is an important election, but there is very little context. How regularly are elections held? Are there elections throughout the country at the same time? Who else is elected? How many people are eligible to vote? What powers does the mayor actually have? What turnout is expected? What is the election process - FPTP, STV, PR? Dates of deadlines - eg candidacy deadline - would be useful, as would a note in the text of when the election actually happened. Who counted the votes? How did people vote - X on paper, voting machine, online? How long did it take for the initial result to be declared?

Y I've now explained all of this, but I shall go and see whether I can find more on importance. I have no idea how vote counting happens; I've never read anything about that process. What I do know is that they count votes as they come in, and many councils in New Zealand publish a tally of the daily results (Christchurch doesn't). Obviously, before election day, this is a very closely guarded secret. Schwede66 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please use past tense, not present, to describe things which happened in the past.

Y I think I've done that everywhere by now, other than the lead, which I have still to deal with. I shall give this a final read before I hand it back to you again. Schwede66 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Are there no navigation templates which could be added?

? That is a good point. I could write a template for Mayors of Christchurch and add the four mayoral elections to it that have articles, but for now, this doesn't exist as yet. We have a template for New Zealand elections, but to add the few mayoral elections to it that have articles would feel a bit odd. Schwede66 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Images - one image of a poster requested for deletion on Commons (sorry!) due to Freedom of Panorama rules. It doesn't at first glance to be particularly important. Are there no more general photos that could be added - perhaps of the candidates, campaigning, voting, voting places, the past mayor or the city hall?

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.	The "candidates" section is a muddle, going neither by candidate nor chronologically.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section contains too much detail about how the candidates became candidates. While this is not a bad thing in the body text, it's not important for the lead.
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.	Several dead references and inconsistent reference styles.
	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).	Several dead references and inconsistent reference styles.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	While it addresses the campaign in detail, it gives no background or information about the electoral process itself.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Mostly, yes, though there are a few trivial statements.
	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.	No real conflicts.
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.	Only non-infobox image is up for deletion under Freedom of Panorama rules.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Would be nice to have more images, but not a requirement.
	7. Overall assessment.	While the article is promising, significant work needs to be done to bring it up to GA standard in my opinion. This should specifically focus on rewriting the "Candidates" section, and on adding background to the electoral process.

-mattbuck (Talk) 16:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and for uncovering the weaknesses. I'll get onto this later this week. Schwede66 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  I look forward to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christchurch mayoral election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/local-elections-2013/8885574/Embattled-Mayor-Parker-quits
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808055316/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/howthecouncilworks/councilelections/candidateprofiles.aspx to http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/howthecouncilworks/councilelections/candidateprofiles.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022152155/http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/council/proceedings/2004/october/Clause1Attachment.pdf to http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/council/proceedings/2004/october/Clause1Attachment.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017105147/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/proceedings/2007/October/CnclCover24th/ReportoftheElectoralOfficer.pdf to http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/Council/proceedings/2007/October/CnclCover24th/ReportoftheElectoralOfficer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)