Talk:Avenue Range Station massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 10:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to pick it up for a review! Making straight-forward changes as I go, so please feel very free to revert any mistake I commit! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In May of that year" how about "In May that year"?

• You could mention James's brother's name in full: Archibald Brown.

• "was hanged in 1847" are we also able to find the month there?

• "pioneer" It looks slightly puffy, and the word can be removed altogether. Although, it is about a part of a country, so I do not think it should be a problem to have the word and, furthermore, it really is amazing to know about the fact that only one such sentence had ever been given!

• "was sent to the area to investigate, arriving on 19 February" can it be reworded?

• "Massacre, investigation and legal proceedings" the heading should have a comma before "and", to be consistent with Oxford commas used throughout the article!

• "Adelaide on 11 June" you should add the year here.

• "In July, the South" the year should be mentioned here too!

• Do we also know the month Brown died in?

A really well-written article. I guess that is all I have to nitpick on! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Adityavagarwal. All done, except for Archibald Brown, which I think would be unnecessary, and the month of the hanging, which I don't have to hand. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Added month of hanging, as well as source and location of murder (also in the south east of the colony). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! Apologies for the delay. Had a really busy day yesterday. I would in fact love it to go to FAC too! :D Well done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I'll push it through Milhist A-Class review before putting it up for FAC. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

---

1. 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: