# Talk:Electoral district of Perth

This article looks pretty good to me, but I have a couple of suggestions:

I think the lead could be a little more comprehensive. For example, since there's no article on the 1890 elections, it might be nice to mention the 30 single-member districts here? And the redistribution?
Why does the history section talk about 2007, then go back to 1911? Would chronological order be better?
Perhaps I'm having a dumb moment here, and I must admit I'm only skim-reading the article, but I don't get the Lotteries Commission controversy. Why were crosswords banned? The Lotterywest article is no help!
Regards, Somno (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(Just noting that I did my best to address this review and some by other Australian editors with some edits made at the time.) Orderinchaos 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I commented on this at AWNB at the time, but it appears to have been missed: the history section is weak after 1993. I'd like to see at least another sentence about the very close race in 1993 and the fairly major preselection battles that preceded Hyde's taking the seat in 2001. Rebecca (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a section on the 1999 preselection tussle, but no idea where to even start looking for the 1993 stuff, and I'm not sure what can be said about it beyond, it was close (which the article already says). Orderinchaos 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electoral district of Perth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The lead is somewhat short. I would have preferred two paragraphs (what is there is good, but it is somewhat sparse). In particular, I would like to see more about the historical development and the demographics. Otherwise well written. I did a small copyedit, and chose to wikilink somewhat more.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The second half of the first paragraph of "demographics" seems to be missing a referenence. With it being a statistics dump, it really must be sourced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All good. I was wondering if the article would be a little less tame if 1) There was an image of John Hyde, and/or other notable MLAs 2) There was some sort of picture of the legislative assembly and/or Perth CBD. These are not GA criteria (the maps makes it meet them), but just suggestions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Well written article; only the lack of broader lead and a reference is hindering it from being GA. Arsenikk (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)