Talk:1994 Kiribati presidential election

1994 Kiribati presidential election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 6, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Micronesia: Kiribati Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kiribati (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Passed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1994 Kiribati presidential election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will review this. charlotte ^👸♥ 00:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Hearts, I made the suggested changes so far (though I reworded it to make it clear that it was Tito making an accusation on the parliament floor, not Teannaki's government was making the expense claims on the parliament floor). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Hearts Quick check in since the review has been open for a while. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note that I checked in offwiki and this is still active. Courtesy ping: Queen of Hearts Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take over this GA review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Minor comments: charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] He made an accusation against Teannaki's government on the parliament floor on 16 December, accusing the president and his ministers of making inappropriate travel expense claims could be shortened to He accused Teannaki's government of making inappropriate travel expense claims on the parliament floor on 16 December or similar While speech made in parliament were given immunity, comments elsewhere were subject to legal challenges. speeches?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	Will spotcheck the SFNs to James 2002 and Macdonald 1998. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] James 2002: The no confidence vote: Y Y The alleged defamation: Y The first action: Y The second action: Y Commencement in the High Court: Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	See 2b for spotcheck
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	See 2b for spotcheck
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 image is from the Maldivian presidential website, which is blocking me for whatever reason, but is properly tagged, so I'm semi-AGFing here. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending spotcheck and some minor comments. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous comments:		add {{Short description\|none}} "Home Island" should be ~~decapitated~~ decapitalized in the infobox

The 3x4.svg image of the fourth candidate can be removed. (optional)
Did not find any major issues in the prose.
Spotchecked Ref 5, 10, 11, 13, 24. AGF others.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.