 | Colebe is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by SkywalkerEccleston (talk) at 03:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: Sixteenth-century Aboriginal Australian |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Colebe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 03:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Image review
- File:Portrait of "Colebee" by Thomas Watling.jpg: the source at Commons is a dead link; US PD tag is needed at Commons.
- File:Taking of Colbee and Bennelong 25 November 1789.jpg: Could you add a more specific source at Commons? US PD tag is needed.
- File:Drawing No. 25 from the Watling Collection.jpg: rephrase the caption. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Source review
- List all sources in section "Sources", and use the same template for all citations.
- Do you have secondary sources about Colebe's life? My concern is that primarily tertiary sources are cited. Our relevant policy says: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources...tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other". Borsoka (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @SkywalkerEccleston: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Borsoka, I can address this in the next 48 hours. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)