Talk:Waterloo Bay massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is in fairly good shape; I'll do a detailed review over the next few days.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All comments addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All issues addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All information is adequately sourced

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The analytical claims are from solid sources: are sources are used appropriately, with in-text attribution where needed

   C. It contains no original research:

   A good many of the sources are not accessible online, but from spotchecks on those that are, and using google books, I can find no issues.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   As above, I cannot find any issues via spot checks, and Earwig's tool flags nothing but quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Article seems to have covered all main aspects

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No tangential material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Question has been adequately addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable for a good while.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No issues with image licensing that I can see. I am admittedly not the most well-versed here.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

Background

• A note on where the settlers came from might be helpful.

• Done.

• Is the term "pastoral run" specific to Australian english? I can't say I've heard it before. The link doesn't have it.

• It is pretty much an Australian term, I've linked pastoral lease instead.

• Is there a reason you use "had been" rather than "were" throughout the background section?

• An oversight, fixed.

• Is there any available information on which of the many hundred Aboriginal tribes inhabited the area in question?

• I've listed the three in the source.

Recorded events

• I'd give a specific date at the beginning of the section, given that it's a new section.

• Done.

• So the aboriginal folks threatened, then ran?

• clarified, but yes.

• "The group split in two" which group?

• The Aboriginal group, fixed.

• Is there a link you can provide for "Government Resident"?

• No, but I've explained at first mention.

Later accounts

• "to the one Aboriginal male" I'm a little confused about which one this is: is it the one who walked home?

• reworded.

• Perhaps "Annie Easton's infant" in place of "the infant"

• Done.

• "regarding early life on the Eyre Peninsula" I can't think of a better phrase at the moment, but surely this should refer to "early settler life"

• Yes, fixed.

Memorialization

• Are there any links we can provide to the aboriginal people organizations?

• Unfortunately, they don't have articles, but I linked to a subsection of a bio on a woman who was active in it, and redlinked the other.

• "resulted in a series of letters" do we know who, or from which "side", these came?

• all sides, added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• I have no reason to believe that this article is anything but neutrally written, but since this is a sensitive subject, I feel I need to ask: can we be sure that Foster et al. represent recent scholarly consensus on this topic? I did a quick search, and there seemed to be at least one other recent work dealing with this [1] but I don't have access to it. It doesn't have to be included, so long as we can be certain that due weight has been given.

• They really are the only significant academic treatments of the subject, the PhD thesis mentions Liston's story, Doctor in essentially the same way, and refers to the two books used here and doesn't really add anything.

• The "Authenticity and interpretations" section makes several mentions of aboriginal oral histories of the event. It seems to me it would be appropriate to give these a brief mention in the "later accounts" section as well.

• Added a sentence.

• Okay, I think that's more or less it from me: it was quicker than my usual review, possibly because it's extremely well-written throughout. Just deal with the points above and I'll pass this: no rush. Vanamonde (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's me done, I think, Vanamonde. Thanks for reviewing! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, great work. All comments addressed, passing this shortly. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)