Jump to content

Talk:Carrick, Tasmania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCarrick, Tasmania has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 1, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that centenarian Sammy Cox (pictured) of Carrick, Tasmania, may not have been as old as he claimed?

GA Review

[edit]
Pass --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:Carrick, Tasmania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Remove all red wikilinks. Fixed
    I have to disagree strongly with this - see Wikipedia:Red link. Redlinks serve a purpose on Wikipedia. Are you proposing that the town of Hagley, Tasmania should not be linked soley because noone has created an article yet? See the text in the guideline "please do create red links to .... topics which should obviously have articles." - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies rendered to you.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short sections are discouraged. Fixed
    I've merged "governance" and two of the small sections under "historic properties". Are there any remaining that you disagree with ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • C., c or circa should be eliminated. Fixed
    I had thought that this was the recommended and common use (see Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations) but I am far from a WP:MOS expert. I have removed all but one the c. 1850 related to the drawing by Elizabeth Hudspeth is what all the sources say about the image - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only c. is allowed exactly.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (there is nothing about heritage properties)
    Will look at this tomorrow when I have had time to re-read the article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded the lead. It now better covers the whole scope of the article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. Fixed
    Thanks, I have fixed the error in the cooper and goss reference and can't see any more missing page numbers.
    For the year, if you mean that Hull, p.76 in the reference list should be Hull (1859), p.76 then I have to disagree. I use the Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations MLA style references omitting the year (except for where, like von Stieglitz, there are two works by the same author so disambiguation is called for). The MLA style calls just for author’s last name and the page number. The full details of each cited work are in the subsequent bibliography section. I use MLA as adding the year seems, to me, to clutter the references section without adding any further information. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's something.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. Fixed
    Hmmm - I missed a few accessdates when copying this from my notes and I've now corrected this error in a few references. As for the other matters, I only list a publishing date if one is displayed on the web page, and likewise for author. Most of the web links are to places where the author is synonymous with the publisher. Can you point me to a reference# in the refs list you have issue with ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know all those common issues. I was only asking for the access dates.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Correct all ", and" → "and".(Idea! Use the "search and replace tool") and the lead misses "water and sewerage" doen't it?--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except for parenthetical use those are fixed. The lead had a sentence mentioning water and sewerage, I've added another and, given the importance of the section, I think this is an ample sufficiency - Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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 check

[edit]

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.

In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY No problems noted. A nice article. Very readable and informative, and nicely presented. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carrick, Tasmania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrick, Tasmania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carrick, Tasmania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrick, Tasmania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrick,_Tasmania&oldid=1206556481"