Talk:John Tonkin/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) 07:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. I have added the template and will begin shortly, if I have any comments they will be below the temp. This is only my second time reviewing a GAN so please bear with me, and don't hesitate to drop me any comments or questions. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Review progress and notes
[edit]- The article is stable.
- I am satisfied with the licensing of the images. Not a requirement, but given that the article is ~4000 words, a couple more images would be ideal, I personally wasn't able to find anything useable in a Google & flicker search. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I checked the National Archives of Australia and only found one more image, but it is too low quality to use in the article. Steelkamp (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, I also found some images on Wiki Commons but I don't think they are very relevant to the article's contents. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Spot check completed: info is verifiable and free from copyright violations. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- No issues with the references section layout. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Prose Review– Small changes, I have performed myself. Other comments, I have left below. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I should be able to finish most of the review tomorrow, hopefully all completed by Sunday. GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I should be able to finish off the prose review and the other items on the GA criteria by today. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have finished the prose review. Once you have addressed the comments I will give the article a final read through. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I have ticked off prose after giving it a final read-through, the only outstanding item is the section titles which I've highlighted in purple below, let me know your thoughts on the suggestion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed the section titles now. Steelkamp (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Prose review
[edit]Prose review
|
---|
|
oddity
[edit]It was almost a sport amongst librarians in the 1970s to include the photo of John Tonkin with students in front of one of the group settlement schools that he taught at, I am really surprised that there is not a PD image that was frequently used. The article lacks images of JT during his career, I would have thought the group settlement photo would have added something to the article. JarrahTree 08:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Thank you for letting us know. @Steelkamp: Through a search at the WA state library website, I was able to find this image from when Tonkin was a teacher that can be licensed under Commons:Template:PD-Australia. There are a couple of other items that could be of use that the library is yet to have digitalized. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a cropped version of that photo. Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)