Talk:Josepha Petrick Kemarre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written, no MoS problems.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I can't see any problems here; it's well referenced and verifiable. (Just some page numbers requested.)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I can't see anything additional in the online sources that should be included here. The "background" material included helps the reader to understand this topic.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems with neutrality; it's fair and balanced.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No problems
 * 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):
 * Presumably no free images available. An image of her work would be advantageous, although I appreciate there may not be the levels of analysis of her work available that would be appropriate for fair use here.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No links to disambiguation pages
 * No apparent problems with external links
 * I ran the article through Earwig's plagiarism tool & Coren's tool, and spot-checked some of the online refs; found no problems with plagiarism or copyright violations.
 * I ran the article through Earwig's plagiarism tool & Coren's tool, and spot-checked some of the online refs; found no problems with plagiarism or copyright violations.

Ok, this is looking pretty good so far. Some initial thoughts:
 * In the lead, are you talking about Australian dollars? If you, could we make that clear? (Either with "AUS", or linking the dollar symbol etc.)
 * In the "Life" section, it says "By 2008, Robin had died;[1] her son Damien Petrick went on to marry..." Presumably, from what has gone before, this was Robin's son also? If so, it would perhaps sound better as "...their son Damien Petrick...". I'm just concerned that the way the sentence is constructed, her seems to refer to Robin.-- Beloved Freak  18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I've made the two changes suggested. Regarding images: I am trying to prepare one for this article: because there is a sentence in the article that talks specificially about the colours and iconography, I think a fair-use image can be sustained. But I am having technical problems with the colour rendition that I think are due to my camera. If I overcome these, an image will be added. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - I have added a background section - I don't know why I forgot to this for this article. This is generic text, in that I wrote a para and have inserted it (with minor variations) into most of the articles I have created about female artists of the central and western deserts. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm taking so long with this. I can't see any problems that should hold this up, but I'll just give it another read through & last check.-- Beloved Freak  21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we have page numbers for ref nos. 5, 11 & 13?
 * There are no page numbers for references 5 and 11, because in each case the book in general is the source - the whole book at ref 5 is about the commencement of that movement in 1971, and Bardon's role; ref 11 is about the Indigenous designs for the Musee du quai branly, but (from memory) i'm not sure there's a particular page for Watson. I can try and check that tonight. Ref 13 is a different issue: it is the book for which the art work forms the cover - the fact that it is Josie Petrick's painting is stated on an unnumbered inside front page, so i couldn't really think how to reference that. Thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your explanations and happy that the information is verifiable (although would be grateful if you could check that ref no. 5). I'm not sure how this would go at FAC, not sure of the best way to convey what you're saying in the references, but as I say, I'm happy that as far as this nomination is concerned, WP:V is met.-- Beloved Freak  22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As it happens, I can tell you that the ref 5 thing has already gone through FAC: see Wintjiya Napaltjarri. I will try and check the page ref for #11 (I think you meant that, rather than 5?) tonight. I appreciate your thoroughness and willingness to review this. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, #11! -- Beloved Freak  16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, pagination added. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't help thinking that the lead looks really short, but to be fair, I can't see anything that's really missing. Maybe include the fact about the book cover?
 * I'm always bad at keeping lead's up to date. Have tweaked. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than the page numbers, I can't see any problems, so I'll be happy to list the article if you can sort those.-- Beloved Freak  22:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for making those changes, I'm happy to list the article at WP:GA. Well done! -- Beloved Freak  16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)