Talk:Launceston, Tasmania/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • This sort of article need a lot longer WP:LEAD. The lead is to summarize all aspects of the article, without going into unnecessary detail. While history and climate are mentioned, most other sections are not.
   • There are no spaces on the sides of emdashes (though endashes are spaced).
   • Never use contractions (e.g. don't, can't) in formal texts.
   • Do not use terms like "currently", unless current refers to time spans of at least about a decade or so.
   • Sentences like "The Bureau of Meteorology reported that 2007 at Ti Tree Bend was the warmest year ever recorded in the Launceston area since temperatures were first recorded in 1884." are terrible. Not a single comma, wording in the wrong place etc. The article does not use sufficient commas to allow the prose to flow.
   • Never use a hyphen (-) for a range; instead, use an endash (–).
   • Always stick in a comma after starting a sentence with a time statement (e.g. In 2008, ...; Initially, ...).
   • Repeatedly, the prose contains line breaks, without a blank space and a new paragraph.
   • Only Australians know what CBD is. All abbreviations are to be spelled out the first time.
   • Is 2006 the most recent census? Why does the infobox and lead operate with one population (the urban), while the body has a different one (the municipal)?
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • What makes refs 7, 12 50 and 51 reliable?
   • Several, if not most, references are missing publisher/author information (at last one is required).
   • Headers follow the same capitalization rules as article names: only capitalize following words if they are a proper noun.
   • There are [citation needed] tags.
   • Several paragraphs are missing citations, such as under geography and climate.
3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • So there is nothing that has happened since 1889?
   • While mention sport is fine, and for instance world cup arrangements are okay, I fail to see why naming a particular game of association football half a decade ago is particularly relevant. Perhaps a Sport in Launceston, Tasmania article should be created?
   • Very litte on education. How many schools; also, the education content is split between the "economics" and "education" sections.
   • Demographics is rather short. Are there any traits of the populations? Working class, white- or blue collar, age, racial and religious backgrounds, etc.
   • I would have like to see more on economy. How does Launceston make its money?
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:

   Placing article on hold; the author have up to seven days to implement the comments, after which I will determine if it has reached GA status. On a general remark, the articles prose is exceptable for GA, but a copyedit would be encouraged. My main concern is that some areas are lacking quite some prose, in addition to the style and referencing comments. Do not hesitate if there are questions or comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tourism Tasmania is produced by the government so it's reliable. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has now been on hold for twelve days. Very little work has been done to address the comments in the review. If work to fix it up has not commenced by the end of the weekend, I am going to fail it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please fail this article. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am failing the article, after request from the nominator. Once the review comments have been resolved, I would encourage a re-nomination. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)