Talk:Peggy Rockman Napaljarri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No links to disambiguation pages.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lead section needs expanding, a couple of queries on meaning
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Some more detail needed for verifiability
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Would be nice to have some images, but I take it none are available
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose/MoS

At the moment, the lead section doesn't adequately summarise the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please add a summary of each section.

OK, think i've done this. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly confused by the name. Forgive my ignorance, but hopefully it represents the potential ignorance of our readers! In particular, "Thus 'Peggy Rockman' is the element of the artist's name that is specifically hers." isn't 100% clear to me. Does this mean that she doesn't, as such, have a surname? Was Rockman given to her as a surname? Or is it a kind of first name, with Peggy? It's convention to refer to people on Wikipedia by their surname, so do I take it that that's not appropriate here? At some points, you refer to her as Peggy, at some points as Peggy Rockman, and then also as Rockman.

These are good questions. It is not clear from the sources whether "Rockman" was given as a quasi-surname, or as a middle given name. As a result, i ended up mostly using the whole name. I have now revised it so that "Peggy Rockman" is generally used, unless her name is used twice in one sentence, in which case I have reduced the second occurrence to "Peggy". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1st sentence after the lead, you use a reference and a note for her birthdate. Wouldn't it be clearer to just have the [notes1] link to the notes section, with the explanation and three references? I don't understand why one reference would be up in the text, with the other two in the notes. I also wonder (your call; I won't fail it on this) whether or not it would be better to have the explanation of Indigenous concepts of time in the notes section, as it's kind of an "aside" to the main point, which is her biographical details. I feel the same about the two sentences that begin "These names define kinship..." They might be better in the notes section. It's up to you though, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Yes it would be better to have all the ref notes in the endnote itself - don't know why I had it like that. My inclination is to keep the explanatory text in the article. These concepts (of not knowing the birth year of a living person; and of there being no such thing as a surname) are so alien to a typical lay reader, i thought they were better set out in the text. But I could be pursuaded either way. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some of the titles that are in italics should be in quotes, unless I'm mistaken - those that are article / page titles
#1: can we have an ISBN?
#2: the link doesn't seem to work

fixed (i hope) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#9: ISBN?
#11: ISBN? Also, do you have specific pages numbers, as that's quite a large range?
#13: ISBN? Also, specific page number if possible
#14: ISBN

thanks. I think all ISBNs are now provided. I don't have access to the books in question at present - the page ranges refer to individual chapters that cover the relevant subject matter. I'd prefer to leave them as is. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A well written and interesting article, just a few issues to address. I'm putting it on hold.--Beloved Freak 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining about the name, I still find it slightly confusing, and maybe that's something you could work on clarifying in the text somehow, if you're developing the article further. I'm in two minds about the birth year explanation being in the text, so happy to defer to you. I find it slightly distracting from the main flow, but I absolutely agree with you that most people wouldn't know about that, so in a way it might be even more distracting to send them to the notes section in order to understand that part.

The lead looks good now. it might be nice to mention her adult education course there, that being how she got started. Everything else is fine, so I'll pass it now. Congratulations! It's nice to see articles on less obvious topics like this.--Beloved Freak 09:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]