Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/Requests/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

April 2012

This article has been expanded significantly since last assessment. Could it be re-assessd? blacklord (talk)

This was actually reviewed in May 2012 [1] but request was not archived here. —sroc (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

November 2011

Fairly short(ish) article on a prominent nsw politician.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated it B.--Grahame (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Article has been reworked and expanded, please assess. Any constructive criticism would be appreciated. Outrune (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated it B.--Grahame (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Final edits have been made and images uploaded. Could you please re-assess. Be kind :)Beau Dubois 10:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the lead of this properly sumarised the article. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.--Grahame (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated C, but the lead is short.--Grahame (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The above two articles are no longer stubs, please re-assess. Outrune (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated C, but the lead is short.--Grahame (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Outrune (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how much he really relates to Australia (apart from playing against Australia and playing for Illawarra) but he is tagged! Heywoodg 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not tagged any more.--Grahame (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have spent several weeks overhauling this article, and feel it no longer fits the criteria for a "Start" article. Outrune (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated it C.--Grahame (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added as much relevant significant detail to this article and would like it assessed. It is currently rated as a stub on the quality scale. U8701 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've raised it to Start. Close to a C, but short lead, no photo and some question of whether it is comprehensive or balanced.--Grahame (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank You U8701 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reworked this article and it would be great if it could be reassessed. --Limolover talk 06:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is substantially improved since August assessment, so a reassessment would be fantastic. --Limolover talk 12:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

I have rewritten this article and would like it to be reassessed. -- Bgeytenbeek (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would rate it an A. In-depth detail and information is used. Is the seismic recording station in operation again or is is still out of use? Caleb Bond (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rerated it C. It lacks specific sourcing, does not have a lead (see WP:lead), appears to be promotional in tone and does not refer to any commentary from neutral sources and it does not appear to be particularly comprehensive.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have completely reworked this article and would like it to please be reassessed. --Limolover (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the comments at the GAN review, the C rating appears reasonable.--Grahame (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Here too as well.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also a fine article (and much better than any of our articles on PMs) which I have rerated B and I support for GAN.--Grahame (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more nsw polticians I've been working on. Reg Weaver this time, speaker, minister and first leader of the nsw liberals.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also a fine article which I have rerated B and I support for GAN.--Grahame (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

re-assessment and importance please. 149.171.155.146 (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated this C. It is comprehensive and well illustrated and almost B quality, but it has short paragraphs and many would criticise it for having too much text in boxes. Its lead does not fully summarise what follows. Please see WP:MOS. It probably should be put up for peer review.--Grahame (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Asessment and importance please. Blacklord (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated this C. It has some short paragraphs, which should be amlgamated or fleshed out.--Grahame (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work to improve this article. Assessment and importance please. 149.171.155.146 (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rererated this C. It is comprehensive and well referenced, but it is full of short paragraphs and sections, which is not Wikipedia's style (see WP:MOS) and its lead does not summmarise the article.--Grahame (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Asessment and importance please. 149.171.155.146 (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated this C, with some misgivings. The lead is supposed to summarise what follows (see WP:LEAD), but it mentions things not later mentioned. It also has short sections, which should be extended or amalgamated.--Grahame (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Another NSW politician article that needs assessment and importance.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also a fine article, which I have rerated B. I suggest you also take it to GA.--Grahame (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work on this article to bring it up to scratch, I'd like to hear what you think this requires for further development towards GA status. Bruxner had a long-lasting and influential career in NSW politics and I believe an importance assessment is in order for this as well.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is now a very fine article (which I started in a small way). I suggest you take it to GA.--Grahame (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

I want to get the score on this one up around the 700s before resubmitting it for an FL status. There arent many Australian lists at that level - only 1% of the total, and with so few technological lists in general with an FL, I thought this one might've been in with a shot. Its complete, looks good, with good structure, has no edit wars - something of a miracle for lists of inventions - and has a good overview. There have been no problems with the substance of the article, but some assessors have questioned the style - any suggestions to improvements? Mdw0 (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This list has a long way to go before achieving featured list status, and appears to be a carbon copy of this article. That aside, several areas for improvement have been listed below.
  • The format is clumsy with pictures and text scattered randomly throughout the article. It could be improved with the use of a table.
  • This is a list of inventions, not inventors, and subsequently should only depict images of the inventions.
  • Given that this is a chronological list of inventions by year, might I suggest that the headings be restricted to two entries - inventions for which no date is known or patent exists (such as the aboriginal inventions), and those which do.
  • The introduction is superfluous to the objective of the article. This is not an essay - it is a list.
  • Whilst it is not covered within the Manual of Style to my knowledge, I believe that the use of similes and metaphors are inappropriate within an encyclopaedic article. Babies bouncing around a car like a football during a car accident immediately comes to mind.
  • Some of the entries are argumentative - especially those which were "officially" invented elsewhere. I've noticed that this has caused tensions with other editors in the past, and the source of those tensions do not appear to have been addressed.
  • Some of the entries are too brief, leaving the reader wanting (the frozen embryo baby entry makes no reference to cryogenics for instance); whereas others are far too detailed (i.e. AFL).
  • The list is incomplete. In a two minute search I found five additional inventions which were not on the list - all of which are very important (the process of cloud seeding to induce rain in 1947, the concept of remote education via the 'school of the air' in 1950, the first petrol powered lawnmower in 1953, the first nylon swimsuit in 1957, the creation of the polymer bank-note in 1988), leaving me wonder just how many more are out there. A notation reflecting that the list is incomplete should be made at the beginning of the article.
  • Many of the entries rely upon a singular reference, and some entries have no references at all (i.e. instream analysis, dual flush toilet, gene shears).
I hope that helps. Bezza84 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time this article was assessed was almost three years ago, and a significant amount of work has gone into it since then. Any suggestions on types of further information that could be added or problems with the current page would be appreciated. Terovian (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reassessed the article as B. It is fairly comprehensive with appropriate images, but could use some more demographic information. There is also a broken link to the Stony Range Botanic Garden, which you might consider developing or removing the link to.Bezza84 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Presently rated Stub class and now the article has been significantly linked and expanded. If someone would review the article that would be appreciated. Geez-oz (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated it C. It is fairly comprehensive, but its text is mostly in list form and some of its references are poorly formatted.--Grahame (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
point taken on list form, will work towards incorporating list items into main body text, thanks for feedback.Geez-oz (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rated Start class at the moment, has been substantially expanded, more references. Would appreciate an assessment. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated this C, still somewhat short of references.--Grahame (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This existing Start Class article has undergone quite an update and i would appreciate an independant editor/s to review and provide some feedback and perhaps upgrade the class. Geez-oz (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated C. It is fairly comprehensive, but there are unreferenced sections.--Grahame (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently rated C-Class, article was extensively rewritten. Aiming for B-Class and later, a Good Article nomination. igordebraga ≠ 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rerated B, good luck at GAN.--Grahame (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

New article Callanecc (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rated this Start as it reads a bit like a CV. Needs a more considered opinion from somebody in Military project.--Grahame (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional content and images added to article. Article is rated Stub by WP Australia and Start by WP Trains. Suggest it should be upgraded on WP Australia to Start class Would someone please review. Thanks. Geez-oz (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have assessed it as B-Class - see comments on the talk page, this article may be reverted to C-Class due to lack of references for some material. Callanecc (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the review,further references added, added coords and further cleanup.Geez-oz (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

More references added, some information deleted and more added Callanecc (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully referenced and comprehensive article on a relatively obscure Premier of NSW. Thanks Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've rerated this B.--Grahame (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Veronicas

I have updated this article to include descriptions of the award ceremonies and changed the heading of the article. I'm after a quality rating and advice on where I can improve this article. Thanks in advance. DonEd (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a list. The only rating it can have is list or Featured List. You might wish to take it to Wikipedia:Peer review.--Grahame (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

MV Manly (1965)

A new article on Sydney's first hydrofoil. At the moment it is a stub but will be expanded so don't bother giving a quality rating yet. But it needs an independent assessment of importance. ShipFan 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Have assessed it low importance to WP Australia and removed stub template from article Callanecc (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Australian Film Institute Award for Best Film

I have made many changes to this article and I would like to have it assessed, thank you. DonEd (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a list and I have re-assessed it as such. It has very little content in terms of prose.--Grahame (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cornish Australian

I started this article in December and have been working on it pretty much alone since. I would like the importance rated, particularly with regard to WikiProject Demographics of Australia. I would also like some suggestions on improving the quality of the article.Bodrugan (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is rated C, which seems to me to be reasonable. It is comprehensive and reasonably well referenced (although I can't say how reliable the sources are) and well illustrated, but it has short stubby paragraphs, a very short lead and untidy references. I'm not sure that it should have a higher importance rating (even though I am an Australian with partly Cornish ancestry myself).--Grahame (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010

Tiwi language

I've begun editing this page as I will be researching this language for my PhD, and I would like to request an assessment of its importance, which currently stands at 'low'. This is one of Australia's most distinct indigenous languages and is extremely important within linguistics. I would class it as 'top', given the criteria above, as it is internationally considered a crucial language to be studied given its morphological complexity and the high attrition rates of such languages. jangari - ngili-ma 02:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've rerated it C. I'm not sure that its referencing is comprehensive enough for B.--Grahame (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I was concerned mainly about the importance (what was 'low'), not the article quality. jangari - ngili-ma 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

November 2010

Freshwater Blue

I have begun work on this article and wanted to get it assessed so I can get feedback on where it can be improved and its importance and quality scale. Thankyou ~~DonEd (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010~~

I have tagged it with a start rating. This is outside my speciality, but it is fairly short, outside the plot summaries and it will need more on critical reaction.--Grahame (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Reassessed at C-Class do above and it should attain a B-Class grade Callanecc (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

University of the Sunshine Coast

I have worked on previous suggested edits - lists to prose, references etc - and would appreciate feedback and further suggestions. Cheers 1Audit1 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The references could still be improved significantly; they are almost entirely just simple web links with titles. Using the Template:Cite web would help to include relevant information such as the publisher, author, date, accessdate etc. PDF references should also include "|format=PDF". Pending that, I think it would qualify to be assessed as C-class. Aeonx (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2010
I have rerated this C class.--Grahame (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

October 2010

Echium plantagineum in Australia

I noticed this article hasn't been assessed on it's importance or quality. I realize the amount of references and external links will keep it down in it's quality, although the article does cover a fair amount of the topic. It would be good to get it assessed. — JamesDouch • Talk • 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have rated it start, very short of specfific sources.--Grahame (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

University of Wollongong

A reasonable amount of edits have been made since this article was last reviewed as Start-class in July 2007, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia, and I would like to know what I can do to improve the article to C-class and even to B-Class. Thanks -- Aeonx (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rerated it C class, but it has problems in that some sections are unreferenced and it is largely made up of lists rather than prose and the prose sections often conist of short paragraphs. It also contains several in line links, which are not acceptable. Please read WP:MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project

My first article created, I have spent some time reasearching the project and the events that lead to its demise. I have included quite a few references but am not sure if i should be repeating the same reference in a paragraph. Also seeking input into any additions that should be made. Funkywinders (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dame Edna Everage

I have just done major work on this article, adding a bibliography, citations, cleaning up the writing (even more than I had done before). Please consider it for GA status and make any comments re further improvement you feel are appropriate. Thanks. Oh, I am not Australian. Does that matter? --TEHodson 09:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Matilda House (person)

This is my first attempt at adding an article. I would appreciate your comments as well as any advice on how to improve it, if possible. Dnb01 (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have rated this start. It is rather short with stubby paragraphs and no sections or photo, although it is well-referenced. You might look at WP:MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Inside Out

Please see this article I've been working hard on. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rated this C for WPAUS. It seems a bit thin on critical reviews.--Grahame (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Patricia Conolly

This biography of a living and notable Australian has had considerable work and references added since being rated Stub-class. I would appreciate a re-evaluation as well as any advice on how to improve it, if possible. Embly (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been rerated as Start, which is appropriate.--Grahame (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Education in Australia

Has had considerable work and referencing done since rated Start-class, I think it at least C class, would like someone to rate it and advice on how to improve it, if possible.Shadowmaster13 (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk about backlog! Sorry it's been almost 5 months since this request. I've reviewed the article and made a small copyedit. The article still required some work to be classed as a B article, particularly in regards to B1, B2, and possibly B5 criteria. But in my opinion it qualifies to be promoted to C class. Aeonx (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Memphis Album

by Australian Artist Guy Sebastian

Considerable research and work has been done to this article since it was rated some time ago as Stub-Class on the WikiProject Australia project's quality scale. Would it be possible to have this article reassessed. Many thanks. --Diane (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've rerated C for same rason as below.--Grahame (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Like It Like That (album)

by Australian Artist Guy Sebastian

Again, considerable research and work has been done to this article. As there has not been a previous assessment of this article, could I please request an assessment by WikiProject Australia.

Thank you. --Diane (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've rerated it C. I don't normally rate music, so I have not rated it B. I'm not sure if it is sufficiently artisticly critical, it might be seen as having aspects of advertising.--Grahame (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grahame - thank you very much for taking the time to assess these two articles. I have been looking at other Australian B quality or better album articles to see if there could be an improvement to the above music articles to get a B rating. For example: Mistaken Identity (Delta Goodrem album), Delta (album), Vulture Street. I was not sure what part of the articles had aspects of advertising but I have noticed that the professional reviews have now been removed from the infobox in line with wiki guidelines and are now in the body of the articles - would this make a difference in assessing these articles to B rating. Many thanks to assessors here for your help with this.

June 2010

Julia Gillard

Start class article substantially expanded. Importance raised from mid to top per other articles on Prime Ministers. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been fixed.--Grahame (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Black Honeyeater

I have added referenced information and images to this article, which was previously not much more than a heading and infobox. Marj (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Has been rated B.--Grahame (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Australian Football League

I edited some minor stuff in this article that may make a difference. Please consider a re-assessment. Thanks 58.170.226.77 (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is rated B. It would need to go to WP:GAN to get a higher rating.--Grahame (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth giving this article an updated assessment as I took out much of the controversial stuff where it wasn't needed and attempted to give it a more neutral point of view. Joker264 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

This article was significantly expanded and references added. Gezzza (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note this has been rerated B.--Grahame (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was significantly expanded and references added. (Gezzza (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Rerated C. Fairly listy, needs more text to be B.--Grahame (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Article rated C class in 2008. Was significantly altered and expanded in January/February 2009, complete with references, spelling and grammar corrections. Toxation (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Article initially rated as stub. It has since been significantly expanded and references added.Thylacinus (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have rerated as start. Much of it is not really written as prose, but more as a list. It has generalised references but no specific citations. It also needs structure and a lead to be considered for B or even C class.--Grahame (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

This article is at GAN. I suspect it won't be promoted without a proper lead.--Grahame (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

December 2009

More information added with citations. Images more closely linked to content. Grammar and spelling corrected. Marj (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is already rated B, which is as high as this project rates, and is at WP:GAN.--Grahame (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added many references, and wonder if this article should now rate higher than 'Start' class. Thanks Kathy223 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated C, although parts of it are unsourced, it has WP:MOS issues, particularly in regard to the formatting of references and it should have a picture.--Grahame (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Recently created, I have assesed it would like a more impartial assesment (I created the page). Shadowmaster13 (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated C. Needs picture.--Grahame (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have recently done a major rewriting and fixing of this page.Thanks Stravin (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated B, because it is comprehensive and balanced, but it should have a pic and I think the italics in quote is against WP:MOS.--Grahame (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be rated of high importance as other Universities and even some high schools without as much prominence are rated of mid to high importance also.

I've bumped up to mid importance.--Grahame (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

There have been quite a few changes to this article since it was first rated - I think it might be above start-class now. JVPurvis (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left it at start as it has little text, little or no assessement of the institution from reliable independent sources and is nor particularly compliant with WP:MOS.--Grahame (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just assessed this one as C-Class in WikiProject Science. Could someone please re-assess it for WikiProject Australia? :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

C seems OK.--Grahame (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please assess - Thanks. This is one of Australia's most notorious cases of political corruption. Cablehorn (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated C, although it is not fully compliant with the mannual of style, particularly in relation to quotes which should be neither bolded nor in italics.Grahame (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please assess the article. Thanks. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rated it C.--Grahame (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

A start level article of significant importance, due to the changes it brought about in Australian-Chinese relations as well as policy changes within China, Australia and the rest of the world. It has also forever changed the way foreign business look at working in China and vice versa. If someone could give it any sort of rating so as to be an indicator on what to work at. I personally think it should be of high importance. Also, I think this article is sorely neglected for the global impact it had. Cheers. Capital Markets (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've rated this start, partly because its an on-going event.--Grahame (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A large article with high importance, rated B on WikiProject Bio. Probably B here too. Thanks Stravin (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Grahame (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently rated Start, hoping to get it to C at least as it is well referenced. Gibbsyspin 10:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated it C, but it says very little about him outside football.--Grahame (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently rated Start, deserves a B. It is well written, laid out well, and has plenty of illustrations, doesnt go into unneccessary detail, is unbiased and stable. It only requires beter referencing to have a shot at a GA. Mdw0 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it C. It is mainly a collection of lists and it sources are thin.--Grahame (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Currently rated as stub by other Wikiprojects, but substantially expanded over the last week or so. Euryalus (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated it C. It would be useful to have some sort of illustatration.--Grahame (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, though the only portrait I can find is on the lid of a snuffbox, which may not format well for an article. I can probably find some images of the ships he commanded, or a map showing the route of his passage on the Endeavour. There's also a poor-quality image of his coat of arms on the wall in Merton Priory, but its too dark to make a good article illustration. Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a re-assessment. Chumchum14 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it C (just), but it needs better references.--Grahame (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional sections and minor work has been added since it was rated Please re-rate it. Adamdaley (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We only rate up to B. You need to go to WP:MILHIST for A rating or to WP:GAN for Good Article rating.--Grahame (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Entire article rewritten, needs a reassessment. Thanks Ravanast (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009

Reassessed C by Shaidar cuebiyar.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

needs a re-assessment. thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it Start. It needs independent sources in order to provide a critical assessment of his work with citations and to be rewritten in accordance with WP:MOS for a higher rating.--Grahame (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This definetely needs a re-assessment. thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it start, but it needs to have reliable third-party sources, with in line citations for a higher rating.--Grahame (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

A large amount done for this article by me. added photo and more information. Could be a 'b' Thanks Stravin (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Grahame (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be listed as low importance to the Australian wiki project. It features a largely unknown band, with no sourced references to their apparent 15 seconds of arguable fame. It also contains little information. I'd even vote deletion... 202.139.186.130 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, but be bold.--Grahame (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be in the start-class area, again. Thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it start.--Grahame (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes and i think this should be in the start-class area. thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it start.--Grahame (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one I've been editing for a long time and I think is an important one. It is referenced quite a bit and is comprehensive without being too detailed or listy. The History needs a bit more referencing. I think it could get a low 'B'. It also needs an importance asessment as it is currently unknown. The school is pretty notable for its dance pieces a couple of years ago and its INXS alumni and a NSW politician. Thanks again Stravin (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it B just. Low importance, because few schools are particularly notable.--Grahame (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I've been biuling this article with references and more info on politics. Can't seem to find any info on his family life or personal life. Will keep looking. I think this might scrape a 'C' class. Currently stub class. Comments welcome. Thanks Stravin (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I seem to have created the original stub as part of an exercise to create stub for serving NSW pollies but I'd forgotten all about it. Much improved.--Grahame (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Received no rating yet. Want to expand on it to include personal life etc. according to upcoming news article, but it still needs 1) a photo and 2) a rating. Thanks in advance.

Rerated Start, but you need to read WP:MOS, particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Grahame (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Major work done to expand the article, which has been difficult given limited resources. Shelbypark (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated C, because I'm not sure whether it is comprehensive.--Grahame (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been extensively improving this page for quite some some and added a lot of references. I have also made sure that info on her political and personal is accurate and not speculative. However, I have not been able to get an appropriate photo of her and some things do need some work but i think it is substantially better than a 'Start-class'. Stravin (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated C, close to B (like Barry O'Farrell, it would be good to find something to say about her which is not about politics)--Grahame (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done some more work on TE's page and I've added a couple of pictures. The lead section really needs some work (and I'm no good at introductions) but I still think it deserves higher than start class Shelbypark (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated C, following medicine project, but it is close to B. Lead needs a few more sentences summarising the most significant material in what follows.--Grahame (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This Australian singer-songwriter is on the verge of becoming a top Australian music act, I've tried to add some of the hallmarks of a proper musician's page, but I would like re-assessment of this page as I believe it should be of higher priority within the Australian music project. Zac 125 (talk) 9:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This article reads a little like an advertisment, it needs to be more critical, ie it needs to reflect comments from reputable sources made on her music which analyses it rather than just praises it. The worst sources are her own web site or fan sites. The article is also unduely listy. It also refers to her by her first name rather than by her surname which is required by Wikipedia to achieve distance so that Wikipedia can be taken seriously for independence and neutrality. Please read WP:MOS.--Grahame (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

I have added a lot to this article since it was assessed as stub-class, and would like to know where it is at now. Tekone Yoshimori (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

rerated C, rather listy and needs a picture.--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is of higher importance to other relevant projects; nonetheless this project claims it (it is among the 50 largest Australian companies) and has rated it start so I thought I'd give a heads-up that the article has been completely re-written and expanded. I've also requested GA review and assessment updates from the more relevant mining and companies projects (maybe it's better to just wait and follow their assessment). Bantman (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rerated B, now at WP:GAN.--Grahame (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

had a go at moving this to a new class/standard. My first timeStevepaceman (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have rerated Start.--Grahame (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Just spent some time on this former stub. Wondering if I could get an idea of where it's at now...Hack, terrorising wikipedia since 2005 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated this start. It is still full of short stubby paragraphs and generally lacking in content.--Grahame (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Did some work on this page to get the ball rolling in moving it up to a higher standard. My first attempt at improving an article - added some new information, new sections, and some new references to existing material. By no means perfect but hopefully a lot better than what was there a few days ago. Any assessment or feedback would be much appreciated. Drbelievo (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated it C; it is still fairly listy and has short paragraphs.--Grahame (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just finished this article after a month's work on it in my sandbox. Have published it but don't know what else needs work. An assessment would be greatly appreciated. Gibbsyspin 02:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have rated this start. It currently consists almost entirely of lists and tables. It needs a significant amount of text to gain a higher rating. Also its text at present as a high level of words like "tremendous" and "played brilliantly", which fall foul of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style.--Grahame (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

This article would do better with an importance rating, it would encourage people to work on it more. Does anyone have any advice on getting the standard raised on this article? --In a café we debate decadence a summer butterfly flits (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given this a "low" importance rating, because few schools are notable enough to be given a higher rating. This has nothing to do with the quality of the article. The article needs inline sourcing from verifiable sources. Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Grahame (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get this to GA standard, and could use some guidance on whether it is there yet, and if not, what would get it to that point. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rerated C. At a glance it needs a much improved lead to be rated GA. I don't think that the references are formatted in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources. It needs a photo.--Grahame (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get this to GA standard, bearing in mind the constraint that attempts to find a picture of the subject have drawn a blank. Any other suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I note this is at WP:GAN and comments will no doubt be made there. I think though that it will need a much more substantial lead.--Grahame (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

December 2008

November 2008

Expanded article from start class, wikified and added inline references and infobox. Shelbypark (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I rerated this C, following medicine project.--Grahame (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded article well referenced, not much more to add--Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have rerated this B. It is now at WP:GAN, which is appropriate.--Grahame (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded article, improved references and removed dead links since previous reassessment Shelbypark (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Substantial expansion and sophistication since last assessment. Also, much more informative than article on nearby Collaroy, New South Wales which is rated C-Class, while Dee Why is only Start Class. Terovian (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I rerated as C-class, too much dependence (over half) on Warringah Council sources, also the history section is lacking any substance and the government section is very limited on the LGA has only current members with a passing note. Gnangarra 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assessment following expansion. Dan arndt (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

re-rated as B-class not much else that can be added to article Gnangarra 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting reassessment following substantial expansion. McWomble (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now rated B.--Grahame (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've had a read of this. Needs work on punctuation, but otherwise, not sure what is holding it back from being rated GA. Grahame? Cheers! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

October 2008

This article is rated as a stub but I've significantly modified it including references

I have boosted the assessment to start class. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the internet in australia article has been been restructured and updated stats put in, more neutral viewpoint and more references. may be beyond start category have not rerated. Good if I could have an outside perspective.Digmores (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rerated as B-class, it has a solid structure and broadly covers the topic, history will need more work and improvement of sources before GA. Also be careful of focusing on news events and individual companies this is meant to be an overview article such specific can/should be within the company articles. Gnangarra 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I recently expanded this article from the short section that it was, and feel that it may exceed Stub quality. Could someone have a gander? \ / (⁂) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rerated C, but it is still missing some biography.--Grahame (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Grahame, and suggest using WP:CIT for the notes/citations, where possible. Shelbypark (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

New article after some time researching and writing, keen for an idea how it went and be improved.  SEO75 [talk] 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to WP and not yet confident enough to rate pages, but I would suggest looking at your inline references. There are a few paragraphs without references. I would really like to see an inline ref on the statement The prima facie cause of the incident was excessive speed; in the opening paragraph - but maybe that's just me. Otherwise it's a nice article. Shelbypark (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on this article (photos, info box, expanded information and references), and was wondering if it now qualifies as C Class? Shelbypark (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have rerated thus C, but with improvements to references it could be B. The ADB and the first and fourth external links could provide refs for most of this material. The second external link is dead and the third is irrelevant.--Grahame (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if someoune could reassess the Kew Asylum - I have significantly expanded it since it was assessed as a Start class. Shelbypark (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have rerated B and suggest WP:GAN, but I don't like lead being squeezed between photo and infobox. Photo should really be at top of infobox, although I don't know how to do that. Also photos shouldn't be more than 300px (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images) and refs should come straight after puctuation.--Grahame (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I have rearranged the photo and info box at the top, made some of the thumbnails smaller and fixed up the punctuation in relation to references. Is there anything else I should do ? Shelbypark (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have changed a couple of in-line links with refs. In-line links are not acceptable for good articles (but then again refs are not meant to be used where information has not been sourced from them; things refered to in articles should really have their own articles if they are notable). Citations should be in consistant formats (as produced by cite web etc templates for instance).--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the WP:CIT link - I have finally corrected all the citations and I've nominated it for GA Shelbypark (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, we have just recently been reviewed to become an GA article, however due to some problems (which we have now fixed) we didnt meet the criteria. We were wondering if someone can please to an importance rating assessment for us. We are hoping for a rating of High/Top for WPSchools and mid/high for WPAustralia. All suggestions, comments, etc. welcomed and will be grealty appreciated. Thank you in advance! Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed importance to mid for Education in Australia, and for Melbourne because it is one of the more famous schools in Australia. But requests for WPschool assessment are a bit out of scope here! Wikipedia is not a place to promote schools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

have made many changes since last rating as Start class - now B or C? 60.242.81.226 (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has since been assessed by Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC) as C-class
(Try to look for more independent and reliable references! References such as Facebook are NOT adequate)

Many changes since last rating in August 2007 including layouts, references, etc. Jayec (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has since been assessed by Sheepunderscore (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) as B-class & low importance.
(Try to look for more references!)

I have added additional information, references and photographs to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if this has been nominated for a good article nomination, wait for the outcome of this process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It passed GA, made A class, and now claims the featured article status (from 16 September 2008)! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added additional information and references to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

B class looks about right. You could consider improvements to make it GA nominee. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added additional information, references and a photograph to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has since been assessed by Woody as B-class
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment/Requests/Archive_1&oldid=1232902252"