![]() | 2013 Christchurch mayoral election was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 30, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mattbuck ( talk · contribs) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will add comments first, then add status after.
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 2013 Christchurch mayoral election was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 30, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mattbuck ( talk · contribs) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will add comments first, then add status after.
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)