Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I will review this. It may take some time, but I thought I would identify one significant issue up front: with the exception of the Strike Force Neil material, the article relies completely on news media reports. It is now over four years since the riots took place, and there are scholarly articles that either directly or indirectly discuss the riots, their media portrayal, the causes etc. I don't think an article about the riots can really be adequate unless it draws on this literature. One example of such an article appears to be listed in the (overly long and cluttered) external links section, but it should be being used as a source. There should not be any media articles listed under external links, nor unreliable sources or minor relevance. A link to a photo gallery is appropriate. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, profuse apologies to all for the continued delay. I think that the article as it stands meets GA Standards, particularly the concern over 2b, if this was an FA article I would agree, but since it's "only" GA I'm not overly concerned. I've read and gone through the above sources and they add either; nothing new, or nothing that can be kept within NPOV. An "over-reliance" on media reports is not bad as they contain many of the raw facts that wikipedia strives for. I think that the article as it stands is GA compliant. Sanguis Sanies ( talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm done with this article. I'm not overly concerned about the "evolution of Australian socio-cultural life at that time." I tried to add info about what government legislation was passed, but the only ones I could find were not RS. I can't add anything more too this article, if others want too by all means, but my work here is done. Hamilstone can pass or fail this as is.
Sanguis Sanies (
talk)
08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No progress is being made, no edits since 12 April. I recommend failing this nomination now. The nominator can ask for community re-assessment at WP:GAR or sort out the outstanding issues and renominate at WP:GAN, where the queue is down to less than 20. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are other problems.
Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
At present I think the article is not quite GA standard:
No progress is being made, there have been no edits in 8 days. I recommend that this nomination be failed now. The nominator can take this to WP:GAR for community re-assessment or sort out the outstanding issues and re-nominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I will review this. It may take some time, but I thought I would identify one significant issue up front: with the exception of the Strike Force Neil material, the article relies completely on news media reports. It is now over four years since the riots took place, and there are scholarly articles that either directly or indirectly discuss the riots, their media portrayal, the causes etc. I don't think an article about the riots can really be adequate unless it draws on this literature. One example of such an article appears to be listed in the (overly long and cluttered) external links section, but it should be being used as a source. There should not be any media articles listed under external links, nor unreliable sources or minor relevance. A link to a photo gallery is appropriate. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, profuse apologies to all for the continued delay. I think that the article as it stands meets GA Standards, particularly the concern over 2b, if this was an FA article I would agree, but since it's "only" GA I'm not overly concerned. I've read and gone through the above sources and they add either; nothing new, or nothing that can be kept within NPOV. An "over-reliance" on media reports is not bad as they contain many of the raw facts that wikipedia strives for. I think that the article as it stands is GA compliant. Sanguis Sanies ( talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm done with this article. I'm not overly concerned about the "evolution of Australian socio-cultural life at that time." I tried to add info about what government legislation was passed, but the only ones I could find were not RS. I can't add anything more too this article, if others want too by all means, but my work here is done. Hamilstone can pass or fail this as is.
Sanguis Sanies (
talk)
08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No progress is being made, no edits since 12 April. I recommend failing this nomination now. The nominator can ask for community re-assessment at WP:GAR or sort out the outstanding issues and renominate at WP:GAN, where the queue is down to less than 20. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are other problems.
Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
At present I think the article is not quite GA standard:
No progress is being made, there have been no edits in 8 days. I recommend that this nomination be failed now. The nominator can take this to WP:GAR for community re-assessment or sort out the outstanding issues and re-nominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)