Talk:John Neild

John Neild has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: New South Wales / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal John Neild is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Neild/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:Frickeg

I will carefully examine the article and begin my review shortly.

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.	Prose is good. All concerns resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is very good, the organization is good, and all MoS guidelines are followed.
	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.	The references section is good.
	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).	All statements are sourced, and all sources I could check back up the statements.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All major aspects covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	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.	The image is correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is appropriate. I wish there were more, since all images of Neild would be PD, but I can't find any others.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes all criteria.

This article is well written and well sourced. The only major concern is that the article seems to have been closely paraphrased from the source. The entire "Early life" section is based very closely on the Rutledge source, for instance: each sentence in the source is rewritten and placed in the article in sequential fashion. Although no sentence is word-for-word identical, this section at least is sentence-for-sentence identical, and that is still a copyright concern. More worrying is that I don't have access to the other main source you used, Wilcox, so I can't compare how closely you paraphrased the text from this source. I discussed this all with one of our resident copyright experts (and employee of the Wikimedia Foundation) at User talk:Moonriddengirl#John Neild, so you might want to see that discussion for more info.

I'm sure you had no intention of violating copyright, and I'm absolutely not accusing you of bad faith. Copyright is tricky, and it isn't always obvious what's a violation and what's not. To bring this article up to GA status, you'll have to rewrite all sections of prose so that it doesn't follow the source text so closely, perhaps combining or rearranging sentences, and removing characteristic wording that isn't found outside the source (such as calling the firm "(J. L.) Montefiore, Joseph & Co" instead of "Montefiore, Joseph & Co"). This is true for the parts that use Rutledge, but also for the parts that use Wilcox, if there is close paraphrasing going on from this source as well. If you can do so in the next seven days, I'll reevaluate, and there's a good chance it will pass GA status at that point.

There are more minor concerns: phrases like "as a backbencher" may not be understandable to non-Australians; terms like free trade and Motion of no confidence should be linked; a catalog reference link to Songs 'neath the Southern Cross might be useful; etc. But the above issue should be dealt with first. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've received access to (part of) the Wilcox, and I'm satisfied that "close paraphrasing" is not an issue regarding this source. Only the Rutledge source material needs revision. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns have now been resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Neild. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022051200/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/769257fb353caf1cca256e4b007d43e0 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/769257fb353caf1cca256e4b007d43e0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]