Talk:Bunnaloo, New South Wales/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 03:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Basic grammatical errors ("Until it's disbandment"), unnecessary capitalization ("Post Office"), informal abbrevations ("approx."), "Mrs Hawkins" instead of full name. First sentence of the lead is a run-on and should specify the state and country. I have no idea what "the parents of Bunnaloo" means.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Much of the article is unreferenced. Citations that do exist are formatted inconsistently. At a spotcheck, the average yearly rainfall doesn't match up with the data from the source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article seems to be missing crucial info on demographics, geography, transportation, but is riddled with facts of dubious relevance and notability. We don't need to know the principal of the school, for instance, and the Bunnaloo Table Tennis Club doesn't seem nearly notable enough to mention. The article needs to assert the significance of the Bunnaloo Hall as well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Pretty straightforward.

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):

   I see no evidence that File:Bunnaloo Hall - 1927.jpg is licensed correctly. How do you know that no copyright was placed on the image?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, the article falls significantly short of meeting the GA criteria, and in fact needs significant work to be assessed as anything higher than Start-class. As such, I'm forced to fail the nomination. Please consult the GA criteria and perhaps review some GAs on geographical places of a similar caliber on which to model your work here. If you have any questions or would like me to take another look before a potential future re-nomination, please feel free to send me a message. Sorry, and best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)