Talk:Eureka Flag/GA2

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

All points should be considered. It's okay if you disagree.
 * Consider adding template:infobox flag
 * Bold text means that it points to this article. Battle of the Eureka Stockade and Eureka Rebellion do not, so un-bolden. (MOS:BOLD)
 * "toge-ther" should be "toge-ther"
 * Link Geoffrey Blainey, Australian Labor Party, Epsilon Crucis, Welcome Nugget
 * "He said that it was 60 ft long" Use template:convert to provide a conversion to metric. (In this context I wouldn't abbreviate either)
 * "12th regiment" Capitalise "regiment" here. Same with "40th regiment"
 * "I shall endeavor to give you an abstract of it" Reference required here (and is that the spelling of "endeavor" in the source?)
 * fn 119 - "Darlington 2014" is not in the Bibliography
 * Consider using the same referencing format in fn 116 and 123 as in the rest of the article.


 * All those changes have been made except I've looked up the articles on a bunch of historical flags and they don't seem to use infoboxes.
 * Robbiegibbons (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That's okay. It's not necessary and you did consider it. I have made a few more minor changes related to style and links. If you want to take the article to FAC, then there is one thing. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, because the two can be separated for some purposes, but the lead of this article, while sourced, contains material not covered in the article. You would want it all covered in the body as well. Anyhow, great work here. I like articles that tell me things I did not know before. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Article looks pretty good
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I would be inclined to split some of the large paragraphs and merge some of the one-sentence ones but meh.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are correctly licensed
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are correctly licensed
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: