Talk:Susie Bootja Bootja Napaltjarri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Couple of issues, lead needs expanding
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
1 dead link
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Another interesting article. I actually started reading a bit more about Australian Aboriginal kinship this time, and found it fascinating. Here are my thoughts:

Lead

As per WP:LEAD, lead section is not currently summarising the whole article.

OK, I finally think i got this done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does artist need to be linked?

No. Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life

I think this opening sentence would be neater & slightly easier to read if it was done like Peggy Rockman Napaljarri, with a link to the notes section, giving the various year references. "Circa" already implies that it's not going to be exact, so I think it would be ok to just have one date there, and mention the other possibilities, with references, in the notes. What do you think?

Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice "skin name" is linked on its second mention - is that intentional?

No it wasn't - fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information about her family or early life? I presume not because it's not mentioned, but anything more on that would be great if it comes to light anywhere.

Pretty sure i've squeezed the sources for all they are worth. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref #4, National Gallery of Victoria, is not working

Awkward. They've just "improved" their website, as a consequence of which it appears, temporarily one hopes, to be stuffed. Search function not working, browse function not working. The page isn't archived at archive.org. If you don't mind i'm going to leave it as it is for now, and hope the NGV fix their site soon, at which point i'll get a new address. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to do here, I'll put it on hold.--Beloved Freak 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good work, it's a pass!--Beloved Freak 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]