Talk:Council House, Perth/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Initial thoughts
Once again I get to review an amazing piece of work. Will be back prob this weekend to do detail. I don't know if much can be added, but did anything of note happen between cosntruction and refurbishment in the 90s? Back later. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * there are a few stylistic glitches. i will try and identify and edit these. I have one structural suggestion: the section on "public offices and soldiers institute" should be headed something like "History of the building site", then remaiing material should be subheadings of a section on the building itself. It is currently a little confusing to begin by reading quite a lot of material that is not strictly about the building that is the subject of the article. It is chronologically logical, but just needs some better signposting.
 * I have renamed the first subsection, let me know if it's not right. - Mark 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I was not able to check the articles from The West Australian. I think if this were seeking to go to FA, a broader reference base might be desirable, but i recognise may not be realistic. Ther heritage nomination documentation provides a crucial high-quality reference point.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The detail is great. If I am right in understanding that nothing happened between construction and council moving out for the refurb, then nothing is missing - it just reads slightly strangely to just jump thirty years. Perhaps add a sentence that actually indicates that this is not an oversight, eg "For the next thirty years, the building was occupied continuously by the City Council."
 * Done. - Mark 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * I think the gallery images would be better integrated into the text at appropriate locations. I think all images have fair use rationales, but I am a novice with images, and find this stuff pretty confusing.
 * The only really useful image in the gallery is the old one of the Public Offices, and that won't fit in the relevant section due to the infobox (I don't think a left-aligned image would work, really). The other gallery images don't even really need to be there; I only have them there in lieu of a category on Commons. Maybe they should be removed entirely. - Mark 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i tried a location for the historical pic - works for smaller screens, but not for larger - I see the problem. Re the other photos - i agree that moving the second facade shot out altogether is preferable, but the fountain image is pleasant and might be used to illustrate a section where there is discussion of the fountains / surrounds etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How's it look now? - Mark 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. Not sure what you'll make of my last attempted "improvements" though. :-) Cheers. This looks done i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will come back to check on progress and on MoS consistency - I am not very familiar with the manual, so not very good at checking compliance. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I will come back to check on progress and on MoS consistency - I am not very familiar with the manual, so not very good at checking compliance. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)