Talk:Norah Head Light

Norah Head Light has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Lighthouses Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids 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.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: New South Wales / Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal Norah Head Light is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norah Head Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: intelati^talk 01:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Minor thing, the Light keepers section should be expanded or combined into another section
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
nice range of sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Understandable to the n00b
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
the only non free image can't be replaced, and adds to the value of the article
Overall: One thing above needs to be done, and then I will pass the article
Pass/Fail:

I merged the light keepers section into the history section. --Muhandes (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic