Talk:Eureka Rebellion/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Aintabli (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2024 (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: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take this. Aintabli (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most images are in the public domain. The rest are appropriately licensed as well. (Another editor raised some concerns.)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Structure and layout

References in the lead could be removed. Especially if they are for information only mentioned in the lead, they should be moved, and the information should be added to the body. Aintabli (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the images, I recommend the reviewer has a look at my comments on the licensing of several images common to both articles at Talk:Battle of the Eureka Stockade/GA1. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects, I will re-upload the images without a correct tag if another one is applicable. Robbiegibbons (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go ahead. I actually owe an apology looking at how much time has passed. Aintabli (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost two weeks. Forgot to ping you @Robbiegibbons as a reminder. On a different note, even without a set due date, this review is well overdue (on my part), but still, I will be able to give my full attention to this review the weekend after next. Sorry once again.

But I would like to make some preliminary notes that you could work on in the meantime:
It would be great if you could reduce the amount of quotes used, especially in Eureka Rebellion#Political legacy. This problem is not limited to that specific section, though. If there was a specific reason for the abundance of quotes, please do explain. But I really encourage you to paraphrase many of them.

Not mandatory, but we could have some of the pictures to the left just to break the repetitive nature of the layout.

This first meeting was followed by ongoing protests across all the colony's mining settlements in the years leading up to the 1854 armed uprising at Ballarat. This sentence is unsourced. Please check any other sentences lacking references.

Aintabli (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Robbiegibbons, have you replaced the images? Aintabli (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity

@Robbiegibbons, @Aintabli: I suggest you start up on this review again. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review clearly just scratches the surface, but there are still some unfulfilled points, such as the unreferenced bits and the abundance of quotes. The first one hasn't yet been addressed, with the latter not fully tackled. Peacemaker67's review of a related article nominated by Robbiegibbons includes comments for images reused in this article, which weren't also addressed. All of these are about 2 months old. Peacemaker67's review of Battle of the Eureka Stockade (linked above) further lists several issues with regards to the sources, which were also reused in this article. Although I did not highlight them here, they were visible in the aforementioned review but not dealt with for 2–3 months.

It appears that I and Robbiegibbons chose to be inactive at the wrong time. I took this article during the backlog drive but could not give my attention due to unexpected circumstances back in August. Although not a full-on review, I (along with Peacemaker67) left some comments in October. Conversely, Robbiegibbons has not been (fully) active from September onwards. Looking at their long-term editing pattern, I hope that they will start being active later this month. I will continue to be lenient given my earlier inactivity and wait until January 8 next year for Robbiegibbons to return. I plan to continue holding back on the review in case I will have to fail the nomination then. Aintabli (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for picking this back up. If @Robbiegibbons doesn't pick up on the review, then we have to call it a fail and move on. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still chipping away at it. What do we think about the number of quotes in the political legacy section now? And I will reupload the images with the correct tags very soon.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbiegibbons, the section looks okay. Could you integrate some of the standalone sentences into a paragraph? When it comes to the overquotation issue overall, I've counted about 20 quotes (most of which were quite lengthy) in the article, so this would currently be more of a concern rather than the Political Legacy section. Aintabli (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to come off as if we shouldn't have quotes. The first half of the article looks good, but when I start scrolling down, it evolves into a repetitive structure of one sentence one quote. I would especially pay attention to portions where there is a cluster of quotes. Another thing of interest is that you might want to remove or replace some of the primary sources, because otherwise removing the quotes and paraphrasing might get tricky. Aintabli (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbiegibbons Happy new year! I will have to fail this article on 8 January if there isn't sufficient progress by then. I believe that by now, there is a good amount of suggestions and issues pointed out. Aintabli (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (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.