Talk:Meander, Tasmania/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 20:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments
This article is pretty good. I've read it from beginning to end and checked the facts for the few sources that are online.

For criterion 1A:
 * "The town is bisected by the Meander River and it sits between Quamby Bluff and Mother Cummings Peak of the Great Western Tiers mountain range, 24 kilometres (15 mi) south of the town of Deloraine, Tasmania." makes it sound like mounain range is south of Deloraine, but I assume it means to say that the town is 15 miles south of Deloraine.
 * "Agriculture predominates in employment" sounds slightly awkward; is there some other way to say that?
 * "The building burned down December 1926; During..." should have a period, not a semicolon
 * "From 1949 to 1968 it was called the Meander State School..." What was called the Meander State School?
 * All fixed I think but I will revisit the wording - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 2B:
 * If refs 18 and 22 support the 2nd-to-last paragraph of the current town section, they should go at end of paragraph. If they don't support all of that paragraph, another citation should be added.
 * fixed by adding a citation for the Legislative Council - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 does not support "Agriculture predominates in employment; almost 40 percent are employed in the livestock, dairy farming, grain farming and sawmilling industries" as far as I can tell.
 * The relevant note is under the section in the reference titled "Industry of employment, top responses" where it states "Of the employed people in Meander (State Suburbs), 21.3% worked in Dairy Cattle Farming. Other major industries of employment included Sheep, Beef Cattle and Grain Farming 13.4%" the 40% is just me adding up the figures but the AEC lists these as the top employment responses - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 33 is dead.
 * fixed' with a link to the web archive. Link appears to have gone dead in the last few days - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 34 says "seek support to close the school". Is that the same as "began the process of closing", which is how it is written in the article?
 * - Yes. In this case the "seek support" is a a euphemism for requesting funding. from this news article it seems it's mostly for new uniforms. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Kim Booth, who was until 2014 leader of the Tasmanian Greens". The source says he is the leader, but the article says he was the leader until 2014. Presumably, he stopped being the leader sometime after that article was published, but there should be a source, unless it's obvious.
 * fixed. He is the leader of the party. At some point this will no longer be true and a ref can be added then for that. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 62 is dead.
 * fixed. It seems that the climate PDF is dynamically created. By accessing it I can make the link not dead but instead I've linked to the data table page. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 3A:
 * A demographics section would be valuable. Ref 1 is a good place to start.
 * A section on geography would be nice if sources exist, but it's not mandatory.
 * For Demographics I've added a few sentences in the current town section. There is not really enough material for a separate section. Unfortunately I can't use prior census details as in 2006 the boundaries were vastly different and prior to that it was rolled up in the largely statistical zone of Deloraine and not mentioned as a separate locality. I have not been able to find any more sources on Geography than the few in the article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? As I said, ref 1 has a huge amount of data and seems to date to 2011, not 2006. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely sure. All the ABS 2011 census is is a collection of numbers, most of which have no context or real significance. All I can do with the data is regurgitate it interspersed with words. All the figures I've looked at could be summed up in the generalisation "much like the rest of Tasmania". IF I had more references I'd be writing a section like the one in Carrick,_Tasmania - Peripitus (Talk) 22:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

 * Well-written
 * The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Verifiable and no original research
 * It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It contains no original research: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Neutral
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Stable
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images
 * Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Overall
 * On hold Symbol support vote.svgPass
 * thanks for the review. I'll go through and address these points over the next two days and respond back here - Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's addressed all of the points raised - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . I can't see any more of note to add. I've reread the article, and the census data from 2011 (ref#1), without finding anything of significance - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something along the lines of Juniata_County,_Pennsylvania or even Columbia_County,_Pennsylvania (the former of which is a good article). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  11:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - ok - will look at these tonight - Peripitus (Talk) 03:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - how's this now ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much better. No further reason to hold this up. By the way, would you by any chance have time to review one of my creek GANs? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  11:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the comprehensive review. You certainly have a lot of creeks up for review at the moment. I'm travelling for the next week but will try to make time the next week. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)