Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brisbane/1

Brisbane[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delisted. I've gone ahead and done so as it's not ready yet. I'll work on it! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) has noticed a problem with the review of Brisbane. To quote "Should someone review this recently passed article as it was passed by an apparent sock of a banned user?" Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article should be examined. Given the unusual circumstances GAR seems appropriate. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first blush I'd say that the article is either GA or darn close. I'll take a closer look later. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article looks good, there is at least one dead link, one bad link and one that times out. Surely these should be fixed before it gets a GA status? --79.68.188.204 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved editor, I'm fine with a renomination. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Article should never have been passed. There are significant issues:

The lead is too short, with too many short, choppy sentences, lacking coherence, and not adequately summarizing the article.
I found at least two images that are not properly tagged with image copyright tags: Image:Brisbane BCEC Exterior.jpg (it's labelled as coming from the Commons, but no copyright tag is present), Image:Riverside Traffic.jpg.

With the riverside traffic one, I agree, but the BCEC Exterior one quite clearly has a PD tag on it, and has since February? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The history section is too short, and doesn't really tell the story of the history of the city. It looks more like a collection of interesting and non-interesting tidbits of trivia insert somewhat randomly in the article by multiple editors.
The geography section is ok, but poorly organized. The image placement should be reexamined to place images at better positions in relation to text in the article that they go with. More information should be added about the overall cityscape and specific neighborhoods, so the section is incomplete.
The citation for the low/high temps and precipitation data does not go to a specific citation, but only to the main website of the Bureau of Meteorology. The citation should specifically cite where data is coming from. I would also recommend changing the table used to the newer {{Average and record temperatures}}.

Done Replaced the citation with a link to the actual page used to source this data. Note that I do not believe the usage of the US-centric (uses farenheit and inches) {{Average and record temperatures}} template would be appropriate for this article, as these measurements are not commonly used in Brisbane. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The statement, "Per Capita water usage is below 140 litres per day, giving Brisbane the lowest per capita usage of water of any Western city in the world." is not backed up by the information in citation #25.

I disagree. It shows the target and the current usage level as being under 140. However I'll remove the citation as the data is dynamic and so it could be false at any given time in the future. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics section is far too short. Incomplete. I would recommend moving culture ahead in the order and education down, so that the order of sections puts demographics right before culture. But demographics still is in need of serious expansion.
'Sport' and 'Media' should be moved into their own main sections, not as subsections of culture. The 'sport' section has many short, choppy paragraphs, indicating low quality prose. The section should be rewritten to make the prose flow better.
No citations in the 'Health' section.

At the present time, I would rate the article at a good, solid B-class, but not GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree. It's still not a GA - which kind of stuns me, considering how many people put effort into the article. It keeps cropping up for consideration for FA status, which is kind of weird considering it's not even close yet. I'm going to try and put some time into it over the next few weeks and see what can be done about Brisbane's perpetual B-Class status, as one of my first focus points now that I'm back on Wikipedia. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is just an observation, and probably not related, but I wonder if the push for getting this article to WP:GA and WP:FA is related to its bid for the Wikimania 2009 conference, which just ended based on the latest Signpost article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unrelated and irrelevant. As for the push to get the article to FA, the last time it was a candidate for FA was in 2005! The "push" for GA is part of a proposed featured topic on the capital cities of Australia's states and territories. It is unfortunate that the article was promoted by a banned user but it is not part of any conspiracy. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the bid leader for Brisbane's Wikimania bid, and a peripheral contributor to this article, I can assure you that the two are disconnected. My interest in this article predates the start of the Brisbane Wikimania bid in January 08. As Mattinbgn has stated, the prime motivator (for me at least) for improving the article was the fact that most of the other Australian capital articles were of a better quality than Brisbane was. Note also that the banned user that passed this through GA was entirely unconnected with our bid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]