Talk:Albury/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peripitus (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This article appears well intentioned and covers the topic areas I expect a GA places article should. There are however some significant reference/referencing issues, the lead section needs attention and the article lastly (this is the easiest part) needs copyediting to smooth the reading experience.

• Lead
  • Does not summarise the article.
  • References 3,4,6,7 are used only in the lead. The material in the lead should be a summary of the material in the article and references in the lead are usually an indication that this is not the case.
  • Many of the sections of the article (eg: History, Industry, Sport) are not covered in the lead. The lead section needs to summarise the most important parts of the article - this one reads simply as an introduction.
  • Unique material and references need to be moved to the body and the lead rewritten to summarise the whole article. Most of the lead is unique material rather than a summary.

• Completeness
  • The history from ref 8 could be used to slightly expand the section on the airport.

• Writing
  • There are a quite a number of parts that could do with copyediting. This needs to be addressed after the reference issues and lead section are dealt with.
• Images
  • Appear all correctly licensed.
• References and verifyability. All facts that could be disputed require references and the reference has to be relevant for the referenced text.
  • Ref 2 does not lead to data backing up the distance from wodonga.
  • Ref 4 should be removed - Wikipedia articles and categories are not reliable
  • Ref 8 needs a publisher/author etc.
  • Ref 8 states the airport is at 531ft, the article 538ft. Ref 9 states it is at 165M (at the weather station).
  • Ref 10 needs publisher/author/date etc.
  • Ref 11 needs publisher/author etc.
  • Ref 23 needs to not be bare links
  • Ref 33's link is dead so I can't check that it backs up the text.
  • City and suburbs section is not referenced and has been tagged as such since 2007
  • Ref 10 does not support the comparison to Melbourne and Sydney. This material is also not really relevant and should be removed.
  • I can't see what reference backs up the frontier town section. Ref 20 only backs up the last sentence of its paragraph
  • Rail section is unreferenced - what is this backed up by ?
  • 3 paragraphs in industry are unreferenced - look for all of the paragraphs without references across the article.
  • The {which?] mark in culture needs to be resolved.

- Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC) @Catmando999: - The revisions seem to have stalled. It's been a couple of weeks and we need to close this out please - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you can close the review, and I'll do my best to fix up the page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 22:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)