Jump to content

Talk:Wyangala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleWyangala was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2015Articles for deletionKept
September 22, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 2, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 23, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the original pioneering settlement of Wyangala, Australia, was submerged on completion of Wyangala Dam (pictured) in 1935?
Current status: Delisted good article

Article is no longer a stub

[edit]

Review again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvalzano (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rerated it C, but it has too many lists and photos to be rated B. Please see WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Image use policy.--Grahame (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up, and edited down the number of photos used. DirtDigger 02:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvalzano (talk • contribs)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wyangala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JSwho (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll try to get this review done in the next few days. This is a long article! No immediate failures.

Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Some comments and suggestions

[edit]

Overall

[edit]
  • Prose, spelling and grammar are good.
  • No obvious copyright violations for text or images. I have checked several references that have online links and all are good.
  • Good use of images throughout.
  • Layout/structure of the article is good.
  • I have checked most of the linked references now - all are appropriately used.
  • Structure/layout of the article is fine.

Well done, I really enjoyed reviewing this article. I'm going to pass it. JSwho (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]
  • For the 1961-71 dam upgrade section - you should remove "bringing with them their families, cultural traditions and probably most impactful, their food".
   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the post office section, there is no need to mention "drawing in residents on a daily basis to share news and gossip".
   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community section

[edit]
  • No need to mention current club presidents.
   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In attractions subsection, remove "well-regarded as an excellent".
   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you write "impressive width at its base" use another word other than impressive.
   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will give more feed back soon and continue with the review. JSwho (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

You have a good, extensive list of references supporting your article. However, there are few issues with some of the references:

  • You need to add page numbers to the book/journal references where they are available.
   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

You do not need to list links that are already shown in the body of the article or in the reference section. Please remove any repeated links from both the see also and the external links section. JSwho (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Wyangala. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wyangala&oldid=1199632826"