Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/Requests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia | Assessment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdavies 965 (talk | contribs) at 09:10, 20 December 2008 (→Current requests for assessment: added december heading for convenience). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Instructions

  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.

Example 

===={{la|article}}====
Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~


Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

Current requests for assessment

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

December 2008

November 2008

Expanded article from start class, wikified and added inline references and infobox. Shelbypark (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rerated this C, following medicine project.--Grahame (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded article well referenced, not much more to add--Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rerated this B. It is now at WP:GAN, which is appropriate.--Grahame (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded article, improved references and removed dead links since previous reassessment Shelbypark (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial expansion and sophistication since last assessment. Also, much more informative than article on nearby Collaroy, New South Wales which is rated C-Class, while Dee Why is only Start Class. Terovian (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rerated as C-class, too much dependence (over half) on Warringah Council sources, also the history section is lacking any substance and the government section is very limited on the LGA has only current members with a passing note. Gnangarra 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assessment following expansion. Dan arndt (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re-rated as B-class not much else that can be added to article Gnangarra 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting reassessment following substantial expansion. McWomble (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now rated B.--Grahame (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

This article is rated as a stub but I've significantly modified it including references

I have boosted the assessment to start class. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the internet in australia article has been been restructured and updated stats put in, more neutral viewpoint and more references. may be beyond start category have not rerated. Good if I could have an outside perspective.Digmores (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rerated as B-class, it has a solid structure and broadly covers the topic, history will need more work and improvement of sources before GA. Also be careful of focusing on news events and individual companies this is meant to be an overview article such specific can/should be within the company articles. Gnangarra 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently expanded this article from the short section that it was, and feel that it may exceed Stub quality. Could someone have a gander? \ / (⁂) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rerated C, but it is still missing some biography.--Grahame (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grahame, and suggest using WP:CIT for the notes/citations, where possible. Shelbypark (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

New article after some time researching and writing, keen for an idea how it went and be improved.  SEO75 [talk] 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to WP and not yet confident enough to rate pages, but I would suggest looking at your inline references. There are a few paragraphs without references. I would really like to see an inline ref on the statement The prima facie cause of the incident was excessive speed; in the opening paragraph - but maybe that's just me. Otherwise it's a nice article. Shelbypark (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work on this article (photos, info box, expanded information and references), and was wondering if it now qualifies as C Class? Shelbypark (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rerated thus C, but with improvements to references it could be B. The ADB and the first and fourth external links could provide refs for most of this material. The second external link is dead and the third is irrelevant.--Grahame (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if someoune could reassess the Kew Asylum - I have significantly expanded it since it was assessed as a Start class. Shelbypark (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rerated B and suggest WP:GAN, but I don't like lead being squeezed between photo and infobox. Photo should really be at top of infobox, although I don't know how to do that. Also photos shouldn't be more than 300px (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images) and refs should come straight after puctuation.--Grahame (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. I have rearranged the photo and info box at the top, made some of the thumbnails smaller and fixed up the punctuation in relation to references. Is there anything else I should do ? Shelbypark (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed a couple of in-line links with refs. In-line links are not acceptable for good articles (but then again refs are not meant to be used where information has not been sourced from them; things refered to in articles should really have their own articles if they are notable). Citations should be in consistant formats (as produced by cite web etc templates for instance).--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the WP:CIT link - I have finally corrected all the citations and I've nominated it for GA Shelbypark (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, we have just recently been reviewed to become an GA article, however due to some problems (which we have now fixed) we didnt meet the criteria. We were wondering if someone can please to an importance rating assessment for us. We are hoping for a rating of High/Top for WPSchools and mid/high for WPAustralia. All suggestions, comments, etc. welcomed and will be grealty appreciated. Thank you in advance! Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed importance to mid for Education in Australia, and for Melbourne because it is one of the more famous schools in Australia. But requests for WPschool assessment are a bit out of scope here! Wikipedia is not a place to promote schools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

have made many changes since last rating as Start class - now B or C? 60.242.81.226 (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been assessed by Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC) as C-class[reply]
(Try to look for more independent and reliable references! References such as Facebook are NOT adequate)

Many changes since last rating in August 2007 including layouts, references, etc. Jayec (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been assessed by Sheepunderscore (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) as B-class & low importance.[reply]
(Try to look for more references!)

I have added additional information, references and photographs to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if this has been nominated for a good article nomination, wait for the outcome of this process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It passed GA, made A class, and now claims the featured article status (from 16 September 2008)! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional information and references to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B class looks about right. You could consider improvements to make it GA nominee. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional information, references and a photograph to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been assessed by Woody as B-class
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment/Requests&oldid=259134450"