Talk:Hobart coastal defences/GA1

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

G'day, over all I think this is a pretty good article. I can see a lot of work went into it. However, I am listing this article for an individual good article reassessment in accordance with the instructions at Good article reassessment. My main concern is in regards to the article's referencing standard. There are many places in the article that appear to be unreferenced. I marked these with "citation needed" tags about two weeks ago. (I also think page numbers should be added to the references.) According to the Good article criteria, the presence of "citation needed" tags is a grounds for a quick-fail. That said, I am very keen to see this article kept as a GA, so I will not quick fail the article. Instead, I intend to leave it on hold for the next week or so, to see if this review sparks interested editors who might be able to find the required references. I will then come back next week and make an assessment of the progress. I hope that those who are involved in the article are not disparaged by this. I certainly want to see it kept as a GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, not sure if you are still active, but if you are as the article's author, do you still have access to the references that you used putting this together? If so, would it be possible for you to add citations where I've marked them? If you can, I'd be more than happy to reaffirm the article's GA status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with the nominator's concern about referencing. Whilst this article does a good job of covering a very interesting topic it doesn't meet the requirements for referencing to remain a GA in its current state. Given that it seems to be a fairly specialized topic it would probably require the attention of an expert as well so I think unfortunately this will probably need to be delisted unless the original author returns. I will of cse go through the article and see if I have any sources in my limited collection but it is probably unlikely. Anotherclown (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Further issues: another issue I see is that the lead doesn't comply with WP:LEAD, being more than four paragraphs. I've edited it to (crudely) fix this, but it might be better resolved by someone with more expert knowledge. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a little bit of copy editing today as some of the prose seemed like it needed some work. With regards to citations, thank you for your efforts, . Do you think you will be able to get the other missing citations, or do you think the article should just be demoted? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday mate. I have managed to track down a copy of Dollery, E.M. (April 1967). "Defences of the Derwent". Papers and Proceedings (Tasmanian Historical Research Association). Volume 14 (No. 4): 148–164 through the State Library and whilst it provides some refs, unfortunately the narrative there seems to follow a fairly different course than this article and often they focus on different events. As I lack anymore than a basic understanding of the topic I am unable to reconcile the two sources. As such I don't think I'm going to be able to find all the missing refs short of a major research effort and probably a re-write which I'm just not in a position to undertake with RL commitments at the moment. When I have a chance I intend to continue trying to add refs where I find them and making some small changes, but nothing that is going to get this up to standard. As such unfortunately my advice is to delist. Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that. I will delist now as unfortunately it doesn't seem likely that the issues will be rectified in the near term. Once they've been fixed, I'd be happy to re-assess for GAN again if someone pings me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)