Talk:Robert Madgwick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):

• generally quite good, no major issues. I have just listed a few minor things I saw...
• minor issue: "two faculties- arts and science, and no professors, only lecturers. Most of the school's activities and facilities were contained in a single building- Booloominbah" The hyphens don't seem correct here. I'd suggest replacing with spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes;
• minor issue of presentation: "The New South Wales state government act" should use title case if it is the name of an Act of Parliament (some works also present Acts using italics, as you do in two paragraphs down from here);
• "college degree" not sure about the terminology here - "university degree" or just "degree" seems more prevalent in Australia in my experience;
• "provided sub-standard educations" --> "provided a sub-standard education"?
• "president of the local chapters of Legacy and Rotary" --> "president of the local branches of Legacy and Rotary"?
• I wonder about combining a couple of the short paragraphs at the end of the "Additional expansion and activities" section;
• I found this awkward: "In retirement, Madgwick moved to Canberra and consulted to John Gorton". Perhaps try "In retirement, Madgwick moved to Canberra and worked as a consultant for John Gorton"?
• "who worked in ABC's education department" --> "who worked in the ABC's education department";
• "threat undermined ABC's independence" --> "threat undermined the ABC's independence";
• " if ABC's employees could be " --> " if the ABC's employees could be"
• inconsistent capitalisation: "As Chairman, Madgwick" v. "would not be extended as chairman"
• "previous administration" --> "previous government" (adminstration is not a term that is generally used in Australia for this sort of thing, IMO);
• "not officially informed that would not be extended" --> "not officially informed that he would not be extended". AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• As it has been about three weeks since this review and no changes have been made, I have gone through and made these myself. Cla, if I have changed your meaning too much, please feel free to tweak as necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Overall the article is very well referenced, although the Awards and honours section appears uncited. Could references be added to these items? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to find refs for this section, so please add these in your leisure before taking to A-Class Review or FAC. Otherwise the article is very well cited. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Generally quite good, although I wonder about the necessity of this: "In May 1967, Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) chairman James Darling read in The Age that Harold Holt's government intended to replace him. According to insiders, Holt's government was unhappy with ABC current events shows which appeared to them to take a contrary position on their policies. Madgwick was chosen as Darling's replacement..." Perhaps you could just say, "In May 1967, Madgwick was chosen to replace James Darling as chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission".
• is it possible to clarify why Madwick wanted to do this: "Madgwick asked Whitlam if ABC's employees could be removed from the Public Service Board"? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a bit on this/made this change. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues that I could see. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues that I could see. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• licencing seems generally fine, but as a non free file, I don't believe that "File:UK-Army-OF5.gif" should be used in the infobox. It lacks a fair use rationale for this article. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have replaced the file with a free version. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Interesting article and quite well done. There are just a couple of minor things to deal with/discuss, but otherwise I believe that this meets the GA criteria. Good work. Please feel free to discuss any of my points you disagree with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have made these changes now. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)