Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] South Australian legislative election, 2006

  • Nominating this article I have worked on for months (self-nomination with help from others), significance of article due to the largest Australian Labor Party win in South Australian history, have ensured article is NPOV, neutral and well cited/referenced, hopefully with others approval it can be the first Australian election article to make Featured Article status :-) Timeshift 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
object (for now). Just looking at the first screenful, this is not FA material:
  • In all election articles, the electoral system (or election system) used are of paramount importance. The article doesn't even get around to saying what that is. (I assume it's first-past-the-post? How many seats? Who determined the districts? US-style gerrymandering or UK-style traditional seats?)
  • inappropriate to include changes of seats or votes before giving the actual numbers.
  • No explanation is given for "South Australia" (a state, not a vague geographical term — remember this is an international encyclopedia, and SA is a very small entity population-wise)
  • No explanation for "House of Assembly" (lower house, I assume?)
  • No explanation for "Legislative Council" (upper house?)
  • is there a governor? should south australia be described as bicameral and parliamentary or presidential?
  • how long will the terms run? That's quite basic information that should be more prominent.
  • I'm also not sure it's appropriate to give the "leaders" (is that an official term? What makes them leaders? Are those people south australian politicians or federal australian politicians?) of the two major parties so much attention. Were they even on the ballot?
  • scale is important. How many seats, how many voters, turnout, ...
Ultimately, as a personal opinion, the main thing to write about in an election article is the result. Numbers. Those should be clearly visible, and they do appear a bit hidden in this article. The lead section definitely is not up to standards now, though.
RandomP 17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the Electoral procedures section. It makes many of your qualms obsolete because it explains the:
  • voting systems;
  • two houses;
  • role of the Governor;
  • and, the political system in general.
In addition, you must have ignored the parts where it details the voters, seats, turnout, etc. If you're going to critique the article, you might as well read it through before doing so. michael talk 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. 1a and 1d. Tony 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)