I think that this article is very detailed and generally well-written. maybe some alt. text could be added to the images.
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is deficient WRT Criterion 3 (Images—no alt. text, aside from the one I did as an example; image placement needs auditing, particularly where text is squashed by left–right placement) and Criterion 1a the prose in places. Tony(talk) 09:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment There are copy-edit and citation needed tags. Some citations are missing bibliographic information, while others are certainly not high-quality (such as http://populstat.info/Oceania/australc.htm). The internation rankings section should be pruned and at least partially (if not completely) moved to a different article. There doesn't seem to be even a mention of the most recent decade in the history section. Despite the issues, though, I think the article looks saveable. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
One particular peeve I have is the chocolate-box image of parliament house. Makes me want to puke, and I'm sure the architects recoil in horror. Either remove or find a better one? Tony(talk) 13:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
PS I have no idea why those links appear above. I did everything I could to follow the directions, but alas, things went wrong. Tony(talk) 14:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The toolbox picks up links to any FAC or FAR that has the word "Australia" in it, I'm afraid. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, alt text is no longer required for FAs. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
"The population grew steadily in the following years; the continent was explored,..."—This seems to be an unsatisfactory (stubby) statement, in the lead. I can't work out what to do with it.
I am uncertain whether anyone is a "member of" ANZUS, which is a rather elderly treaty of which NZ's status is highly problematic. People wonder whether it's just a hoax. Perhaps it shouldn't be listed prominently alongside and ahead of APEC, WTO, etc. in the lead. Tony(talk) 08:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. Some of the unreferenced sections need a bit of buffing (with refs), and I am not entirely sure they are correct. The prose isn't as bad as I feared. Will need a couple of weeks yet but this is eminently doable (just a bit bland - bit like eating McDonald's really and I have to really dig a bit to find the enthusiasm for it...) Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well ... Australia is bland. Tony(talk) 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Healthcare is missing, at the moment it only says that aborigines are in a bad state. It also seems as though the list of names might cause a problem, as about 5-10 current actors are on there in contrast to 6 sportspeople ever. I would have thought that sport has a greater impact on the national consciousness, and although the film part talks of the industry, film must surely be much less economically weighty than a whole pile of things. The prose is rather ad hoc and runs into the back of itself sometimes but is fixable once the content is dealt with YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Good observation about healthcare, and agree about ad hoc nature of bits. The unreferenced bits read the worst IMO. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Where's your patriotic spirit, Cas? :P —Dark 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems quite limited to include education as a sub-section of demography in my opinion. The sourcing could be fixed within a week, the prose might take a while. —Dark 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to removing this photo from this history section of the article? It's low quality and is jingoistic in this context, particularly as there's already a photo which represents Australia's military history. A photo of a key part of Australia's post-war history would be more appropriate (the Sydney Olympics perhaps?). For what it's worth, I'm the editor who originally uploaded this photo to illustrate the Battle of Kaiapit article. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Photo removed Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment — Have I missed where it says that aborigines weren't allowed to be counted in the census until 1967. Surely they were previously counted as flora and fauna? I'm thinking this is very notable. Anyway, why in the WW1 bit does it not mention that Australia had the highest casualty rate, per population, of any Allied force? Just from glancing there is heaps of things that could be added. Why is the Largest cities in Australia table under the education sub-section? And what's the basis for inclusion for a sports person in the culture section? Aren't we adding any AFL players to this list because other countries wouldn't have heard anything abouth them? Same with Rugby League, I guess. Ted Whitten, Ian Stewart, Royce Hart, Dick Reynolds, Leigh Matthews, John Coleman, Graham Farmer, Ron Barassi, Bob Skilton and Wayne Carey could all claim to be part of the sporting persons list. I personally think it could get a bit ridiculous. AaroncrickTALK 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've been tipped off that Daniel (talk·contribs) thinks that Tim Cahill, Rafter and Ponting should be on here. Well to pre-empt him, I don't think Cahill is world-beating (plays in a medium club blah blah) unlike the rest on that list, and as for Rafter, Rosewall and Goolagong won 8 and 7 individual grand slams. Ponting, well, apart from Bradman, the next cluster of cricketing greats are a bit closely matched, how do we pick them, although Warne is always in the top5 [in world history] of all polls YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Pat Cash? — don't think so... I think the list needs some sort of criteria. Warne — yeah; Ponting — no, unless being our most capped cricketer is notable? AaroncrickTALK 07:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If we're going by the criteria of soccer club status, Harry Kewell will probably be considered more notable than Cahill (formerly playing for Liverpool and all that). That being said, soccer is hardly a strong sport for Australia; and our best soccer stars would probably be considered ordinary by world standards. Personally, I am reluctant to consider including any soccer players in the article. —Dark 10:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
And yes, include Warne and exclude Ponting. —Dark 10:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
To make things easier I think we should just use the Sport Australia Hall of Fame that is reffed and select from the "legends" class of about 20-odd. Although that doesn't seem to let people in until they are very old. Thorpe is not in the "legends" yet, although Lindrum is. As for possible undue weight on swimming, it is Australia's strongest sport. Been #2 very often in a fully global sport, Cash won one grand slam when many Swimming World Swimmers of the Year were Australian (given that the World #1 often wins 2 or more slams per year), which Cash did not. Leisel Jones, Hackett, Libby Lenton, Klim > Cash, and probably so does Cadel Evans ha ha ha. I think we should ignore AFL, they never win anything for Australia because only half a country plays it, and RL, well three countries play it. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Valid point, but every state bar Tasmania has a team in the AFL. And AFL is easily the most popular sport in Tasmania and it still hosts 4 games a year so it's not just played in half the country. I know your meaning that in QLD and NSW it isn't very popular but they will soon have four teams between them. AaroncrickTALK 05:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It's AFL, 'nuff said :) In the international scale, AFL is not very popular but nor is English billiards. However I am okay with a brief reference to AFL's popularity (heaven forbid), as long as we do not include any AFL players as our stars. On the issue of billiards, the game was popular a few decades back, and Lindrum was the undisputed king of that "sport", therefore I would not oppose the mention. In swimming, Thorpe needs a mention. The Hall of Fame does have quite a bias against recent sportsmen though. In tennis, I would suggest that the Woodies are mentioned. —Dark 08:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The legends status seems to have a formal or informal exclusion of people until they are 2 decades old. Thorpey has to be the standout. 4X World Swimmer of the Year in a fully globalised sport. And most Olympic medals ever. As for AFL there are players from NSW/QLD but how many of the top 100 are from there? As for the media, what a joke, for them Travis Cloke is a superstar and Andrew Lauterstein is not. They used to play youth football together. Hauritz is so maligned despite being in the top 15 in the country, yet the 100th best AFL player is a great star. Lol YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
On another note, perhaps it might be worthwhile to expand on Australia's multicultural nature? I'm seeing negligible references here and there about how different cultures play an influence on society, but the points are half formed. The four-line literature paragraph is too short. Music is non-existent. —Dark 10:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It all has to be severely rationed; that is the challenge. And naming people means excluding people, so one must be very careful of POV. Let's remember there are daughter articles, so summary style at this highest level is at issue.
Getting rid of flag icons would be a good move. And on that topic, more authority comes from cool understatement, something Australians are not known for, regrettably. Just think: the British have Shakespeare, the Germans have JS Bach, the Russians have Tolstoy, and we've got ... WAAAAAAAARney.
Let us also be vigilant against myth-making. Galipoli, however it's spelt, is interesting and important, but I quail with embarrassment when it's trumpeted as a turning point, some great tragedy: 20 million Russians died in WWII. The losses in Turkey were piffling by comparison, and the result of puppy-dogging to the British at that. Tony(talk) 09:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay - healthcare text:
Australia introduced Universal health care, known as Medibank, in 1975. Reworked by successive governments, its current incarnation, Medicare came into existence in 1984. It is now nominally funded by an income tax surcharge known as the Medicare levy, currently set at 1.5%.
Cas, it seems perfectly worded to me. Nice. Tony(talk) 14:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC) PS, I pay 2.5%. Tony(talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) I know it's perfectly worded...question is, where to put it...in economics? Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh you brilliant thing, you. I think another subsection, "Health system", is required under "Education". One could expand the issue a little ... hospitals, the stupid private health insurance system, aged care: just a brief mention of which level of government does which (at the moment). Surprising there's no daughter article. I'd rather have the subsection on the supernatural industry under all of them. Tony(talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment — Could info on the climate be expanded? AaroncrickTALK 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look. was musing on rewording the soil bit too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Been thinking about this - in thinking of restricting this to really prominent folks - was leaning on leaving it out really. I suspect scientists are somewhat less nationalistc than are sportspeople (?) Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
groan - I know. Not too far now but still some stuff to do. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment — Would a brief mention of Alec Campbell — our last surviving Australian participant of the Gallipoli campaign — be notable enough? And he was of course born in Launceston, Tasmania :) Seriously, he was also part of Australian Legends — commemorative postage stamps issued by Australia Post. AaroncrickTALK 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the size of the article, I'd be inclined to leave it out. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep This article is okay. --Oei888 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments: Skimmed through the article. Some repetitiveness with words in the Demography section, a sample: "The Indigenous population—mainland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders—was counted at 410,003 (2.2% of the total population) in 2001, a significant increase from the 1976 census, which counted an Indigenous population of 115,953." Maybe it could be rephrased so the subject isn't mentioned twice and another verb used to avoid repetition.
It's a short compact country article and follows the 100k recommended, but it may be lacking in detail. Australia is mentioned as an ally of the United States and also interested in Asia but there is no mention of the Korean War or the Vietnam War or SEATO. Perhaps ultimately they weren't important to Australians and don't need to be included but the absence is interesting. Also according to the article "Although agriculture and natural resources account for only 3% and 5% of GDP respectively, they contribute substantially to export performance." Then what represents the bulk of GDP? With the two pictures on the economy related to natural resources and exports, undue weight is possibly being put on those facets of the economy. Lambanog (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I reduced the sentence you pointed out. The Vietnam War was prominent, moreso than the Korean War or SEATO. Need to read up on my Australian export notes. BTW Agriculture/farming is strongly part of the Australian psyche, so is not all about fiscal input. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree about the overlinking. Most general words currently linked as of today are somewhat easter egg-y but valid. e.g. 'desert' links to Deserts of Australia and many similar. Agree about referencing needing an overhaul though. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The two Sandy specified were overlinks, IMO, and I removed them. I found very few items to unlink apart from these. Tony(talk) 06:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, how is work on this progressing? I see that work has been happening on the article, but periodic updates here on the review page would be nice. It would also be great to get to a point where we can start to bring in some outside reviewers to start the finishing polish. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hold - As YM is still actively working on the article. --mav (reviews needed) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I find these big ones really heavy going. I do feel we owe core encyclopedia articles like this one and Canada extra time to keep them featured though. I'll try and help some more. I do think it is not far off a keep. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Especially true for vital articles like this one. Very hard to get it right. --mav (reviews needed) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
State of play deep into injury/stoppage time.....Okay, there are no cite needed tags left. The article is densely sprinkled with references except for paragraph 4 of Geography and climate section. As far as I know, all requests for further information on comprehensiveness grounds have been addressed to this point. The prose could proably do with some tweaking but I doubt any drop-dead clangers remain.
I find that less monotonous than hunting refs, so will have a play with the prose. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"Australian cities rank among the world's highest in terms of cultural offerings"—what, rugby league is a cultural offering? It's not something I'd be harping on about right up there in the lead—Western European readers might be perplexed, or misled. "It" refers to "quality of life? Ah, no, "Australia".
I'm a bit wobbly about this claim: "[Brown's] book was not instrumental in the adoption of the name [Australia]: the name came gradually to be accepted over the following ten years." Now, ref tag 25 leads to "Estensen, p. 450", but am I missing something? Estensen's book, article, whatever it is, can be found nowhere in the bibliography. How reliable is it, anyway? To claim that the name "Australia" was "gradually accepted", unlike a negative claim, needs greater justification, I think. Interesting issue, isn't it, so does anyone have access to Estensen? On the prose quality, we have "the name: the name"; and "over the following ten years" since what year? I'm confused.
"...and on 12 December 1817 recommended to the Colonial Office that it be formally adopted. In 1824, the Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as Australia." It's odd that we have a date for the recommendation but just a year for the official acceptance (seven years later!); but we can live with that. What does make me uncomfortable is that ref tag 26 leads to Weekend Australian, 30–31 December 2000, p. 16" (wasn't it "The Weekend Australian"?). This is the supplement the journalists to used to refer to as "the colour comic"; oh they can be cynical, can't they. Anyone got a copy so we can see what their sources were? Presumably, the acceptance year wasn't mentioned in that source, but only in the federal Dept. of Immigration's source. Sorry to be fussy, but I'm just trying to get my head around the whole thing.
"Human habitation of Australia is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago,..."—the ref tag is to "Gillespie, Richard (2002), "Dating the First Australians". pp. 455–72. http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Gillespie02.pdf." Hasn't there been an update of this estimate in the past eight years, based on (i) genetic analysis, and/or (ii) more accurate estimates of the land-bridge window? The daughter article says "The consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans of Australia is placed at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, but possibly as early as 70,000 years ago.", with  a source from 2008 and  from 1998—presumably both sources came to the same conclusion, the same ranges?
"The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, were originally horticulturalists and hunter-gatherers." Wow, this is a striking claim that may well be true: a clear distinction is made between the aboriginal people (not horticulturalists) and the Torres Strait Islanders (horticulturalists), by implication. "Originally", I presume, means on their arrival in the TSIs around 42,000–48,000 years ago. Is this true? It's hard to believe they grew crops then. BTW, the daughter article makes not one mention of TSIslanders. There is no mention of horticulture in the daughter article of the daughter article. BTW, there's a very iffy Timeline_of_Australian_history. Tony(talk) 14:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG Tony you're such a killjoy. I did read Guns, Germs, and Steel recently, and I think the conservative estimate comes out looking okay. The evidence for earlier is tenuous I think (?? - damn I wish I still had the book!) Yeah, teh TSI bit bugged me too and would be good to get right. (sigh) off to work....Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment — The is used quite often in the lead and begins to become annoying. For the population figure in the lead, we should at least say when the figure was released. Also the more specific figure in the infobox could cause some confusion. AaroncrickTALK 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed a couple of them. Hard when many thingies use it in their names (eg The Pacific...)Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I feel climate needs explaining further. What about the comparisons in weather between northern Australia and Tasmania? The difference in humidity and how the northern cities gets a lot more rain than the southern capitals, ie Adelaide, Melbourne and Hobart. AaroncrickTALK 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Added a bit - feel free to add some more from the BoM page, but remember this is a general oz page so there is a daughter climate article to deal with it in more detail. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This really is getting stale, and I think we're approaching crunch time. Could we write out a list of issues that need to be dealt with? Then I will volunteer to leave messages at the WikiProject, the talk page, etc, saying that it's going down the gurgler unless there's action. Tony(talk) 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tony could you perhaps have another run through the prose? AaroncrickTALK 07:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What would be great is if everyone could strike off issues they feel have been addressed. I have some material to look at again to look at some prehistory issues - Aaron are you happy with climate now? Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to have a look tonight. I'm surprised that some of the regular editors at this article vanished as soon as the review process began. Tony(talk) 04:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Just looked at the lead, Ety and History. They're in good shape. Just one thing: "The final constitutional ties between Australia and the UK were severed with the passing of the Australia Act 1986, ending any British role in the government of the Australian States, and closing the option of judicial appeals to the Privy Council in London." Didn't the Act end the British role in the federal government of Australia, too? Tony(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Closing note - This article has been at FAR for three and a half months. No delist votes have been presented during the (long) FARC stage, and extensive work has been completed on the article. As such, the default close is to keep. If any editor disagrees with this, they are invited to bring further problems up on the article talk page and, if needed, renominate the article at FAR in no less than three months time. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.