Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/Disputes

Main project page	+ talk
Noticeboard
Collaboration of the Fortnight
Requested articles and todo	talk
→ Articles needing attention	talk
→ Nominations for deletion	talk
→ New articles	talk
Article assessment (Log)	talk
→ Featured and good content	talk
→ A-Class Review	talk
Outreach department	talk
Automation department	talk
Requested images
Statistics	talk
Portal
Help & tools	talk

Project organisation
Participants	+ talk
Userboxes	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk

Subprojects
General topics
Biota	talk
Crime	talk
Demographics	talk
Education	talk
Films	talk
History	talk
→ Exploration	talk
→ Historic places	talk
→ Maritime history	talk
→ Military history	talk
Indigenous peoples	talk
Law	talk
Literature	talk
Music	talk
→ Crowded House	talk
→ Kylie Minogue	talk
→ Powderfinger	talk
Places	talk
Politics	talk
Sports	talk
Television	talk
Transport	talk
States, places and regions
New South Wales	talk
→ Sydney	talk
→ Riverina	talk
Northern Territory	talk
Queensland	talk
South Australia	talk
→ Adelaide	talk
Tasmania	talk
Victoria	talk
→ Melbourne	talk
Western Australia	talk
→ Perth	talk
Australian Antarctic Territory	talk
Canberra	talk
Australian sports
Australian rules football	talk
Baseball	talk
Basketball (possibly inactive)	talk
Football (soccer)	talk
Gridiron (possibly inactive)	talk
Rugby league	talk
Motorsport	talk

edit · changes

Article importance standards

Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.

Article quality disputes

If you disagree with an assessment of the quality of an assessment of an article, please list your article here with brief comments for discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Institute_of_Fitness - This article is rated as 'Start', and was considered to have multiple issues when assessed in 2018. Edits made in 2021 addressed these issues and the article now reads as an impartial overview of the company structure, management and history. It is suggested that the article be reassessed.

August 2013

ABC Rural (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rated Start-Class now. It is basically a copy & paste from two ABC webpages (see links at Talk:ABC Rural). It has such sentences as "We have 70 specialist staff..." and "Our radio programs include National Rural News..." I've added templates to the best of my understanding: copypaste, external links, third-party. It can hardly rate as a Start-Class article, can it? Lyn50 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miami,Queensland

Done a lot of work,any ideas. Also,can it be rerated. -- Nathannoblet 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Moved here by Iorek85 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with both the rankings - it's a start class, and it's a low importance article, as it's an individual suburb of only a few thousand people. Iorek85 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just finishied reading its needs a lot more work, for B class its got to be useful to the average reader at the moment its useful only to those who have no previous knowledge. The landmarks list need to be expanded to included some information on them, the clubs needs something on their history. It mentions the LGA in the lead but thats it no mention of state and federal politics. Also have there been any notible citizens that have come from the area, that would be worth a paragraph and possible link to their own article. The rating of low is the same as would be expected for all but a few suburbs in any city. If your concerned on this compare it to other suburbs in the area. Gnangarra 10:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerr

The article has some major NPOV issues and relies very heavily on a small number of sources to present a particular POV. It is written like an attack page and this affects the quality. 201.56.110.163 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article importance disputes

If you disagree with an assessment of the importance of an article's subject matter, please list your article here with brief comments for discussion.

Emu, Echidna, Kangarooo, Koala, Kookaburra, Platypus

Emu - Currently rated Top. I would consider a rating of High or Mid more appropriate.
Echidna - As above.
Kangaroo - As above.
Koala - As above.
Kookaburra - As above.
Platypus - As above.

I'm not entirely sure what they should be re-rated to, only that they definitely don't suit the criteria for Top importance articles. Fauna of Australia does, these should be, technically, Low or Mid, based on being individual animal pages, but High, based on being the most well known Australian Animals. --Iorek85 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider Emu and Kangaroo as high due to being on the coat of arms, and readily identified as Australian. The others only as Mid, unless the Monotremes and Marsupials people want to push up Echidna and Platypus. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rated these as top for an Australian perspective as they are iconic Australian animals. If you ask anyone from overseas to name 10 words associated with Australia, it's likely that Kangaroo and Koala would be included in there. Emu and Kangaroo are on the coat of arms, and Koala and Kookaburra are so iconic in Australia that they deserve a top-rated article. I'd be happy to move Echidna and Platypus to a High or Mid, although they are Australian native animals and the only monotremes. (JROBBO 10:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree from a 'well known' POV, but they don't fit with the broad scope of Top Class we've tried to define in the discussion for this page. I'd be happier with them all listed as High, because, as you say, they are the most well known of our Animals, but not Top class, because they aren't the highest articles can get in terms of Australian Fauna and scope. --Iorek85 00:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to rank echidna, you should rank the actual species rather than a family overview page.--Peta 00:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the short beaked Echidna is the famous one? Now I'm even more confused. In terms of 'scope', the importance would go Fauna of Australia, Monotremes, Echidna, Short-beaked Echidna. Ranking the short beaked as high would make it more important than it's parent article. Not many people have heard of the term Monotrememes, but plenty have heard of Echidna. This task gets more confusing every day! --Iorek85 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of relevance to Australia I think its safe to leave the taxomony based pages out of the equation in most cases since the species (ie. Short-beaked Echidna) pages should have all the relevant information on distribution etc. So it would be Top - Fauna of Australia and Mid to High for any species of real interest, ie iconic species like the Platypus. Currently the only exception to this is Kangaroo and associated articles - they are a bit of a mess, and the best article that summarises the diversity of this type of animal is macropod.--Peta 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the rankings for all of the above to High, as per discussion. Now what do we do with this discussion? Archive it, or delete it?--Iorek85 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles

All of these are currently Top Importance. Sorry for the long list, but I don't feel they match up with the other top importance articles listed. The importance I've put next to them is what I think they should be.

Australia national football (soccer) team - High - falls under Sport in Australia
Australian gold rushes - High or Mid - an important event, but goes under History of Australia.
Blue Mountains - High/Mid - Important area, but its less important than the states, or All of Australia
Boomerang - Mid - Well known, yes, but it's just a tool used by Aboriginals.
Breaker Morant - Mid/High - certainly a notable individual, but not Top importance.
Canberra - High - National captial, yes, but its just a city, not a state or all of Australia.
Dreamtime (mythology) - High - falls under Australian Aboriginal mythology
Governor-General of Australia - High - falls under Politics of Australia or Government of Australia
Great Barrier Reef - High - see Blue Mountains.
High Court of Australia - High - Falls under Law of Australia
Melbourne - High - see Canberra.
Peter Costello - High/MidA notable individual, sure, but less important than the party or the position, let alone Politics of Australia or Government of Australia
Sydney - High - see Canberra
Uluru - High - see Blue Mountains
Kim Beazley - High - see Peter Costello
John Howard - High - see Peter Costello

--Iorek85 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney there, and add the other capital cities (I'd have done that the same night I did the states and other overview subjects, but the Tour de France finished before I got to them). Also John Howard and all PMs
High:gold rushes (Mid for the Victorian article), Uluru, G-G, Dreamtime (if not merged to Mythology), High court, significant Leaders of the Opposition and front bench of the Government
Mid: Blue Mountains, Significant opposition and other government front benchers

--Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, John Howard and the GBR as top. They all have international significance as well as their Australian significance. I agree that the others need to come down though, and would prefer mid for the ones you have put high/mid. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 10:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should be trying to set the policy by looking at examples, not just doing the examples. I just noticed we already have above:

Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.

I propose:

to tighten capital cities to always be Top
raise other cities to "High to Mid"
Prime Ministers: Top
I think Uluru and GBR are discussed as representatives of World Heritage Areas. That category has 50 articles, but the template has rather less. Some of those are quite short articles referring readers to several other longer articles. How do we choose 1 article for each area, or do we need to combine some of them? Once chosen, are World Heritage areas Top or only High?

Coments? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume that we're producing some kind of publishable unit here, I think we are going to want to avoid individuals, the articles on the office ie GG, PM, Monarchy should be top, and the actual people much further down the scale.--Peta 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, but I think from a world perspective, and from a history perspective in Australia, the PMs are quite important. High? Do we think our PMs are as important as Americans think their presidents are? They don't seem to have importance ratings on their articles yet, so we can't see what they think. In Australia, the person of the PM is much more important than the individual who is GG. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the office is more important than the position. Top importance should be a general article, and would cover short sections on the Prime Ministers themselves. Definitely a High rating for the individual P.Ms, though, and maybe a Mid for the opposition leaders and cabinet members? As for World Heritage areas, I'd go with High, and have an article on 'Australian World Heritage Areas' as Top. I thought we were doing Australia - Top, States - High -Capital Cities - Mid, but I'd be happy for states and the capital cities to all be Top, large cities (New Castle, Gold Coast) to be High, and smaller ones to be Mid (as well as Shires) and suburbs to be low.--Iorek85 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Court should be Top - it's an essential part of our constitution and our government. I would also leave Prime Minister of Australia as Top, but the individual prime ministers as High. Can people change ranking? ie. when Howard resigns could he go from top to high? (JROBBO 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Of course. For example, Kim Beazley isn't that important now, but if he wins (laughs) the next election, he would be P.M. Simon Crean drops because he's just a backbencher (if he's even still in parliament) now. --Iorek85 03:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion, I've changed them thus; Aus Football Team, Gold Rushes, Dreamtime, Barrier Reef, Costello, Uluru, Beazley - High. I've left John Howard, Canberra, Governor General, High Court, Sydney, Melbourne as Top, and changed Blue Mopuntains, Boomerang, Breaker Morant to Mid. --Iorek85 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've come into discussion rather late but I think that The Great Barrier Reef and Uluru both should be rated as top based on the introduction to the importance scale the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it. Both of these topics are more likely to entry level articles than an article on John Howard. Gnangarra 06:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this discussion it seems that the High Court article has been classified as High. As the apex of the judicial branch of Australian government, if the High Court isn't important enough to fall within the Top classification, then what is? Sambo 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Australia --Iorek85 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Miles Ansett

(copied from assesment requests--Iorek85)
Could somebody please take a look at Reginald Miles Ansett? I suggest that this article shouldn't be rated as 'top' importance. cheers. -- Adz|talk 09:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But since I didn't rate it, I can't change it until we've discussed it here first. I think it should be Mid or maybe High. --Iorek85 10:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You move this while I was doing a review, its a B class article the subject is well covered just needs copy edit to polish, then PR and GA. Importance I put at High though the more I think about it Mid, it was at top but that was put there by the original creator. As I see it would this article be a link to the businesses he created or would it be a link from. I think the later is more likely and therefore less important. Gnangarra 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Blue

Top Importance? Why? Qantas, maybe would Top, but I'd argue high, under an article on Aviation in Australia or Transport, but Virgin should be a mid. Iorek85 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say high, as its the primary competitor to Qantas and is 2nd in the marketplace with a share of around the 30-35% mark iirc. Mid is a bit too low. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]