Talk:Writs issued for 2012 Queensland election

"writs"

To anyone outside Australia, I believe the concept of issuing a writ for an election will need a little clarification. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1410488 [Not ready]

Revision 1410488 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Quite a few details are not in the sources. The numbers of seats previously won, for one thing; the quote about "elections around Queensland being pushed back" for another. Also, as far as I can see only one source actually verifies the news event (dates being set). A second source does touch upon the date but fails to say wether this is new or not. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I do not fully understand why it has taken so long for any of us reviewers to get to this. I do feel a bit bad about that. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1410488 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Quite a few details are not in the sources. The numbers of seats previously won, for one thing; the quote about "elections around Queensland being pushed back" for another. Also, as far as I can see only one source actually verifies the news event (dates being set). A second source does touch upon the date but fails to say wether this is new or not. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I do not fully understand why it has taken so long for any of us reviewers to get to this. I do feel a bit bad about that. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I've added some sources. The pedia source is backed up by Qld Parliament website - either count each member on the full list or click on ech option in the "view options" drop down. --RockerballAustralia c 00:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, chek the relaed news for the local government quote. --RockerballAustralia c 00:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1412656 [Passed]

Revision 1412656 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. (This shouldn't have to be said!) Wikipedia is inherently not itself a trust-worthy source. If it has information you want to use, and it cites trust-worthy sources that verify the information, you can cite those trust-worthy sources. If it provides information you want and it doesn't cite trust-worthy sources that verify the information, then the information is unverified and you shouldn't be using it. I went to some trouble (more than I ought, it's not the reviewer's job) to attempt to work out whether there was actually a trust-worthy source somewhere behind Wikipedia on those last items that I ultimately removed. As far as I could tell, there wasn't. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1412656 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. (This shouldn't have to be said!) Wikipedia is inherently not itself a trust-worthy source. If it has information you want to use, and it cites trust-worthy sources that verify the information, you can cite those trust-worthy sources. If it provides information you want and it doesn't cite trust-worthy sources that verify the information, then the information is unverified and you shouldn't be using it. I went to some trouble (more than I ought, it's not the reviewer's job) to attempt to work out whether there was actually a trust-worthy source somewhere behind Wikipedia on those last items that I ultimately removed. As far as I could tell, there wasn't. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Mismatched tags...

{{edit protected}} At the end of the article is an attempted clear . This is either a DIV or SPAN. The opening and closing tag don't match. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. ~-Green Giant (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)