Talk:Gerard Krefft/GA1

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 15:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I am very sorry to have to do this, but this page is far from meeting GA criteria. Here are some issues I found:


 * Most importantly, there are several lines without citations, two even tagged.
 * The lead's description of him is biased and subjective.
 * Excessive body sections that could be merged.
 * The use of an external link in the body is something generally discouraged (see WP:EL).
 * His discovery of the Queensland lungfish is mentioned in both the lead and infobox as a major achievement, but only brought up very briefly (and without a citation) in the body.
 * This source, only used once, provides valuable, unused information about his belief in Darwinism and natural selection.
 * It's not mentioned here that the final event that led to his firing in 1874 was the theft of gold from the museum, nor that his support of Darwin was part of why he and the board had issues.
 * MOS:SURVIVEDBY
 * The infobox says he had four children, but only two "surviving" sons are mentioned in the body, implying that he had and outlived two other children who are entirely unmentioned.
 * More minor, but "née Buschhoff" and "née McPhail" should be in parentheses.

Again, I am terribly sorry for having to do this. Best wishes, and I hope that this article can be brought up to GA standards soon. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User:An anonymous username, not my real name . . . Thanks for the advice. So grateful. I have already made quite a number of additions and amendments in the directions that you have suggested. However, right now, in relation to the consistent modern "references" (centred on the Australian Museum), and those references' allusions to Darwin, which I consider to be of considerable importance, currently I can find no trace of either his supposed letter to NATURE, or to any mention of him (Krefft) in any subsequent edition of Darwin's ORIGIN. [Just BTW, I can see no value in making any reference to the modern, published challenges to "evolution", by Australian "creationists", in relation to Krefft's work -- as they are, in my view, entirely (historically) irrelevant, to the issue of what Krefft did, and the opinions that he held (especially in relation to other "religious" members of the Trustees, and, also, within the wider community of the day).] Having said that, however, within that sort of objective-scientist vs. committed-belief-system-advocate disputes of the day -- when it seems, at the time of its publication, ORIGIN was well accepted by UK Anglicans -- it does seem significant that, at the height of the tussle between Xmas 1873 and mid-1874 two eminent clerics resigned from the board of trustees, due to their failure to agree with the actions being taken against Krefft. I will do what I can over the next few days to see what I can find about the missing material. Once again, "Thanks". Lindsay658 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)