Wikipedia:Peer review/South Australian legislative election, 2006/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Australian legislative election, 2006[edit]

Round 1 failed

  • Hi everyone. This is my first attempt at doing a featured article and have had assistance from various South Australian wikipedia editors. Suggestions as per the discussion page have been made and the best has been done to accommodate them. I'm not sure what else to ask for or suggest here... basically please review the page and see what you can suggest in my efforts to get it up to FA status! Thanks for your help! Timeshift 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to clarify a lot of things for people who aren't used to South/Australian politics. For example:
  • The Liberal Party is not a 'liberal' party in the 'normal' (yet incorrect) sense; it needs to be clarified as a classical liberal / liberal conservative party. In fact, both party's idelogies will have to be noted so as to not confuse readers.
  • There is no explanation of how the the electoral system works, or the differences between the two Houses.
  • In my view, too little attention is given to the fact that almost 40% of voters deserted the major parties in the Legislative Council.
Hope this helps. I'll try to pitch in a bit too. michael talk 07:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, let me know what you think. By the way, if you can edit to make correct exactly what sort of quota system the LC uses (in electoral procedures), that would be much appreciated too. Timeshift 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but the 'party backgrounds' section, while reasonably neutral, is hopelessly point-of-view and smacks of hearsay. I've tidied the Libs and the ALP and may get around to doning the rest. michael talk 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to think I did a pretty good job about keeping it NPOV. What hearsay? Timeshift 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying its not neutral; I'm just saying that its very point-of-view (the two things are not exclusive), very commentary, very tabloid editorial. I'll tidy them up. michael talk 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I would say the images of the candidates (at the top of the article) are much too big. There's no source for info on the Greens, Family First, or National Party. Not enough of the Results are sourced either. Good job at maintaining neutrality. Right now, some lone years are linked (e.g. 1945), and some are not (e.g. 1946). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates indicates that years shouldn't be linked unless they are part of a date (e.g. June 1 1947), although not everyone agrees. But randomly linking some and not others in not ideal. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for your comments. Much appreciated. In regards to the size of the party leaders, I was hoping to keep it consistent with the other leader tables (as can be seen through the templates at the bottom for other state and federal elections), as they are all 175px. Linked lone years (hopefully this is ok as you said it's debatable). All results can be referenced in the 'State Electoral Office - Official 2006 Election Results' link at the bottom - is this ok? I'm not sure how I can go about referencing each individual percentage and number or if it's feasible. Have now sourced info for Greens, FF and Nats, hopefully now they are sufficiently sourced. Thanks for the neutrality comment, and thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Timeshift 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding footnoting of stats, if all the stats in a section come from one source, you can footnote just the first one, with a comment like "This and all vote totals in this section come from. . . ". Regarding the year links, there is disagreement about what's ideal, but I don't think there's any disagreement that what you have now is not ideal. Some (including me) would say that no lone years should be linked. Others would say only the most important years should be. Others would say all of them should be, but only in their first instance. But linking every instance of 2002, for instance, is clearly overlinking against guidelines. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have now changed to ensure each year mentioned only gets linked once. Are you able to provide me with an example of a blanket footnoting of stats? I'm not sure how to go about it. Thanks again. Timeshift 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The party sections shouldn't be about factional battlegrounds; most of the information on the ALP was just taken from my Don Farrell article, with a bit of spin thrown on it. For an introduction into South Australian politics, there should be a general idea of what the party stands for and its history, not a quick story about recent factional shit-stirring. I'll be making changes. michael talk 05:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I did not take any information from your article. Timeshift 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding whether you did or not, it strongly followed the theme of the marginalisation of the left by the SDA. Elsewhere, you stated the ALP are 'libertarian'! I do agree that one is not SA-centered enough, so there is work to be done there. michael talk 05:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there is marginalisation of the left by the SDA... lol Timeshift 06:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed unrelated federal and added related SA info to the ALP section until we can work toward a compromise. I do wish other wikipedians got more involved with this though, it is hard to make a well written article with such few helpers. Timeshift 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything else that anyone believes would hold this article back from getting the page to Featured Article status? All input welcome and appreciated. Timeshift 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the size of them, but surely you can find better pictures of Rob Kerin and Mike Rann? The ones you have there look like photoshop cutouts... Apart from that, I'd take into account that lots of people reading this page wouldn't necessarily be familiar with SA politics so some explanation of some terms might be helpful. Otherwise great. (JROBBO 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
They are the pictures from the official Parliament of SA website, therefore easier to upload to wikipedia with fair use rationale. Mike Rann has a decent picture on his wiki page but for Rob Kerin, unfortunately I can't just pick any old image from the net that looks good. I wish I could. Timeshift 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed images. Any further suggestions? Any I overlooked? Is it ready for FA status? Timeshift 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for your assistance. I believe I have updated the article as appropriate. If you come across anything that you covered that the script still believes needs work, please let me know. Timeshift 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are very welcome - it is a semi-bot, so sometimes it finds things that are not there. I am trying to get caught up on automated peer reviews, but if you want me to run it again, drop me a line on my talk page. Ruhrfisch 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 failed

Round 3 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006 Timeshift 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/South_Australian_legislative_election,_2006/archive1&oldid=192564996"