Talk:Bill Dunn (Pilbara elder)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. AviationFreak💬 14:06, 18 August 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: AviationFreak (talk · contribs) 01:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some of the paragraph are just 2-3 sentences and could be merged with each other. There's also some confusion about his property - "Later life" mentions "both of his stations", but only one is mentioned before - Could use some expansion in the earlier section to talk about how he acquired them. Personal life can be merged into an earlier section, as this is all about his personal life (he's not a career musician/politician type whose bio focuses on their professional work). Order of Australia and biography should be mentioned in the prose if they are mentioned in the lead.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Generally good. I've made a couple copyedits in places that I felt needed them.
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:
Looks good, references are even nicely formatted!

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
"Dog collar" sentence is unreferenced, and I can't access the Wilson biography (which appears to be the only source for claims about racism being a factor in the denial of his lease application and a whole paragraph of "Other work"). This source being inaccessible isn't a deal-breaker, but would it be possible to cite some of the claims it's used for to more accessible sources?

C. It contains no original research:
Everything is cited well, bar one sentence (see above).

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Not quite bad enough for a quickfail, but there are a couple sentences that are close-paraphrased from here. See Earwig.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Appears to provide a clear and full explanation, though any expansion would be welcomed. Needs a death date.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Very to the point.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Not terribly contentious.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Stable.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Non-free rationale needs a little work. I can't find the image on the linked blog, and it's not used in an infobox (as the rationale claims)

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Image of subject.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold for 7 days. Some things need to be worked on, as noted above. Let me know if you have any questions, I'll be happy to take another look once you've made the noted changes. AviationFreak💬 02:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time User:AviationFreak. My comment on your evaluation above:

Re: 1A - I think a personal life section is warranted here. The prose in the 1920s to 1970s section focuses on his professional career as a pastoralist. Keeping 'personal life' in a separate section helps with readability. Regarding the second pastoral station, I haven't got any sources on hand that describe how he came to acquire the second station so that's not an issue that I'm able to rectify.

My main concern with the "Personal life" section is that it's very short and looks out-of-place, but the MOS doesn't have a problem with section size so it's an optional matter. The second station is a readability issue though, and even mentioning it earlier with a citation to the AustLit source ("He acquired a second station, 'Robertson Range', near Jigalong, but the details of the acquisition are unknown" or something like that) would work. I'm a little surprised a book-style biography wouldn't have those details, but AustLit does appear pretty reliable. AviationFreak💬 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've added some prose regarding the Robertson Range acquisition. The fact it was acquired after his success with his first station is from the Auslit source. Jack4576 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2B - The 'dog collar' act sentence, its supported by the existing second reference. I'll repeat the reference for clarity. Regarding 'more accessible sources' than the Wilson biography, this isn't possible. The Wilson biography is the only lengthy and substantial source that exists about this person's life.

Re: 3B - I'll take some time to address those later this week.

Re: 6A - The image isn't on the linked blog but its contained within a Google image cache of that blog. It comes up when searching 'Bill Dunn' on Google images as linked to the page; but isn't on the page itself anymore. The image is recognisable as Dunn when its considered alongside other photographs that were taken of him in his life. I've edited the minimal use rationale to address the concern.

In a few days after I re-word some of the prose I'll request another review. Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:AviationFreak, have the copyright issues been sufficiently addressed now? Jack4576 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the copyright issues are looking better. AviationFreak💬 00:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I request a re-review? Jack4576 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's looking good now. I've repeated the "dog collar" source, and it looks like everything else that was brought up was addressed. Sourcing checks out nicely.

Promoted. AviationFreak💬 14:04, 18 August 2023 (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.