Talk:Carrick, Tasmania/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Remove all red wikilinks. Fixed

   I have to disagree strongly with this - see Wikipedia:Red link. Redlinks serve a purpose on Wikipedia. Are you proposing that the town of Hagley, Tasmania should not be linked soley because noone has created an article yet? See the text in the guideline "please do create red links to .... topics which should obviously have articles." - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   My apologies rendered to you.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   • Short sections are discouraged. Fixed

   I've merged "governance" and two of the small sections under "historic properties". Are there any remaining that you disagree with ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   • C., c or circa should be eliminated. Fixed

   I had thought that this was the recommended and common use (see Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations) but I am far from a WP:MOS expert. I have removed all but one the c. 1850 related to the drawing by Elizabeth Hudspeth is what all the sources say about the image - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   Only c. is allowed exactly.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   • The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (there is nothing about heritage properties)

   Will look at this tomorrow when I have had time to re-read the article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   I've expanded the lead. It now better covers the whole scope of the article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. Fixed

   Thanks, I have fixed the error in the cooper and goss reference and can't see any more missing page numbers.

   For the year, if you mean that Hull, p.76 in the reference list should be Hull (1859), p.76 then I have to disagree. I use the Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations MLA style references omitting the year (except for where, like von Stieglitz, there are two works by the same author so disambiguation is called for). The MLA style calls just for author’s last name and the page number. The full details of each cited work are in the subsequent bibliography section. I use MLA as adding the year seems, to me, to clutter the references section without adding any further information. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   Okay, that's something.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. Fixed

   Hmmm - I missed a few accessdates when copying this from my notes and I've now corrected this error in a few references. As for the other matters, I only list a publishing date if one is displayed on the web page, and likewise for author. Most of the web links are to places where the author is synonymous with the publisher. Can you point me to a reference# in the refs list you have issue with ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   I know all those common issues. I was only asking for the access dates.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Correct all ", and" → "and".(Idea! Use the "search and replace tool") and the lead misses "water and sewerage" doen't it?--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for parenthetical use those are fixed. The lead had a sentence mentioning water and sewerage, I've added another and, given the importance of the section, I think this is an ample sufficiency - Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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.