Talk:Herring Island (Victoria)

[Untitled]

I know that it's also used as a "landing ground" for the Scotch College Cadet Unit, when they're in their boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.218.247 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herring Island (Victoria)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can not pass GA at its present state. The article has many short choppy sections, with just one or two sentences. It has many large sized images; indeed it is too much image-heavy. The lead does not seem to be a proper summary of the article. The article presently look more like a gallery..--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead. The island itself is just a big sculpture park. So it should look like a gallery. As what you are proposing would not improve the article, I would like to close the nomination at this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Or else, we can try for a second opinion, if you'd like.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, ask for a second opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

After reviewing the article, I don't feel as though it meets the GA criteria and would need a significant amount of work.

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

---

To help organize my thoughts on the matter in reference to the GA criteria, I'll use this list.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I don't find the sculpture section well written at all. It is far too choppy and fails to discuss why these sculptures are important, if each must have a subsection. Likewise, the use of the "image gallery" is excessive. Think of limiting your images to make the article aesthetically pleasing and balanced with the prose to make the article solid.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are good, but I do feel they're a little shallow on establishing notability. Notability should be very well established in a GA candidate. I think a couple more would help here, to help establish that notability and cement it further.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For as much as the island is a giant sculpture park and has been mentioned as such in this review, why isn't there any information about it other than references to certain sculptures? Significantly little is actually said about the sculptures other than descriptions of a few of them. Furthermore, the sections that do refer to the sculptures lack focus on why they are significant and notable in the context of the article.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Again, excessive use of images. Let me cite WP:PERTINENCE - "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can."

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think this article does have some potential. It's just going to take some more prose, reworking, and maybe a little more reference improvement to really break through. Keep at it; I'm sure you can bring it there with some more effort.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 03:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)