This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Josepha Petrick Kemarre is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists
Hi, I know some people here are probably pretty chuffed about this article being listed as a Good Article, but it seems to me the assessment is in error. Specifically, the article isn't broad in scope (it doesn't contain any information about the artist's life between 1953 and 2008, about her cultural impact, or details of any of her notable works), it isn't illustrated by any images (suitably licensed or otherwise), and I have concerns over whether it meets the standard of "reasonably well written". In my opinion the article requires a very significant amount of improvement to reach GA - enough that if were conducting the review, I would fail it rather than place it on hold pending improvement - and I therefore intend to list it for reassessment. Please don't take this as an attack - the work here is good, you just need more of it before the article is GA class - and I think if you compare the article to other GAs about artists the difference between yours and theirs should become apparent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there is no published information about her life between 1953 and 2008 other than that in the article. For commentary on this issue during a (successful) FAC of a similar article, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wintjiya Napaltjarri/archive1. I'm not aware of other material you describe, and the absence of a suitably licenced image (there should be none otherwise) is not an issue at GA as I have always read WP:WIAGA. I will be interested to see other specific concerns. As to your suggestion re comparisons, you might want to look at Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri or Tjunkiya Napaltjarri, both GAs reviewed by editors other than Belovedfreak (though there is a greater literature on Tjunkiya, so a comparison should take account of that). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can see the difference in quality between the Wintjiya Napaltjarri article and this one? Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri is less good - it only just barely creeps over the GA line - and it's still another exponential in quality about the Kemarre article. See my comments under criterion 3 at my reassessment. If nothing else, this link, already used in the article as a reliable source, contains further relevant information not included in this version of the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my point: I was linking to the discussion at the Wintjiya archive as a shortcut for setting out the common issues with the literature in this field. Wintjiya is one of the country's most successful artists, and even in her case the literature is thin - for lesser-known (yet still remarkably successful) artists such as Josie Petrick, it is thinner again. On the other matter, I will re-examine the Mbantua page. Perhaps I should explain that, since Mbantua is a commercial gallery (though it tries to present itself somewhat differently), I tried to minimise reliance on it as a source (there is a risk that their text might "oversell" a client artist, so I try to rely on the independent sources where I can). But I accept there may be more on offer there. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had that concern initially, but upon consulting the Mbantua page I could see no reason why a gallery would not be a reliable source of biographical information on its artists, in the absence of contradictory reports. You'd just have to watch out for anything that talks about her significance, notability, or impact, as it's probably not reliable in those areas. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently reassessments aren't automatically transcluded to the talk page. Therefore please click through here to read my reassessment of the article, and comment upon it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After much improvement of the article, I have closed the reassessment as "Keep" and removed the GAR transclusion. A link to the reasseassment discussion remains in the article history banner at the top of the page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
