Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canberra/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 02:22, 23 June 2010 [1].
Review commentary
editCanberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Australia notice board, WP Canberra, WP Cities, User talk:Arno, User talk:PDH, User talk:YellowMonkey. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
FA from 2005, the article has 1c issues throughout the page. It could use a bit of copyediting to address flow, and also problems of short paragraphs scattered in the article. There are twenty-seven images used in this article - these could use an image review for each. It probably might make some sense to trim some of these images to not have so many included on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
there are a few citation needed tags;in the Urban Structure section there are a number of paragraphs without a citation at all;some of the citations are just bare url chains which should be formatted;some of the web citations are lacking access dates;citation # 55 is a dead link;the headings in the References section should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles.— AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- All of these comments have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Yellowmonkey has asked that I comment on this article. I think that it's in very good shape, and my only comments are:
- It's over-stating things a bit to say that the "federal government moved to Canberra on 9 May 1927" - although the parliament moved to Canberra at this time, most government departments remained in Melbourne until well after World War II, with some departments not completing their move to Canberra until the 1980s! (this is identified in the next para)\
- It should be noted that only a relatively small part of modern Canberra was designed by Burley Griffin - statements such as "Canberra is a planned city that was originally designed by Walter Burley Griffin, a major 20th century American architect" overstate his influence on the city's overall layout
- Need to change it so mean the inner-city centre, as the recent sprawl has nothing to do with him. Good catch YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was way too much information about Canberra's railroad history, which is a subject of little importance to the city given that it's never had more than a single train station and some temporary lines built only to move construction material around - I've trimmed this Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
editFeatured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing, reference formatting, copyediting and image concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Refs done, copyedited, history and urban structure expanded and some other bits. Lead expanded YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant improvements done to article to address issues. Good work overall. -- Cirt (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FA criteria are now met Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All my concerns have been addressed. Well done, YM. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks like a lot of good work's been done on this since its nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.