Talk:Melbourne/GA2

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

This article was nominated for GA in September, 2007, however it failed due to these problems. Recently the article was peer reviewed and now it is well referenced, interesting and comprehensive. If there are any minor problems that need tweaking, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches GA status. -- Flewis (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This article is certainly interesting and comprehensive but is not yet ready for GA for the following reasons:
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article. As such, there should be few citations (if any) in the introduction. Insofar as the lead is meant to summarize the article, it's unclear how "It was the host city of the 1956 Summer Olympics[20] and the 2006 Commonwealth Games.[21] Politically, it was host to the 1981 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the 2006 G20 summit.[22]" describes the city, especially in the lead.
 * Done - The prose is very 'fact dense' and I have left only the necessary references/inline cites. The rest have moved/copied to other parts of the article. -- Flewis (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox should be fixed to provide more meaningful figures to the reader. To say "various" in an infobox is just plain bad since its supposed to be a quick glance at information, readers shouldn't have to link anywhere.
 * Comment - I haven't removed the links, becuase they are both informative and necessary in this case. -- Flewis (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are too many images in the article and they are formatted improperly. For example, images such as the one of a tree in the botanical garden or the plane taking off are not helpful to the reader because they're not specific to Melbourne at all.
 * Done - removed redundant, superfluous pics -- Flewis (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No images/charts/graphs should be left-aligned next to or under a section heading. All vertical images should be marked as being "upright", and ideally images should rarely be hard-sized, but if they are, cannot be hard-sized under 300px (i.e. [[Image:Federal Coffee Palace.jpg|thumb| upright|left| 200px |The Federal Coffee Palace...]] . The reason for this is that hard-sizing overrides users set preferences on how the images appear.
 * Done -- Flewis (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done Images are still left-aligned next to or under section headings, they're still hard-sized in areas, and only images that are vertically oriented should be tagged with "upright". -epicAdam(talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved any left aligned images from under the section headings, removed hard-sizes and removed all the upright tags on horizontal images. Mvjs  Talking  11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Image captions in areas are far too long. They should be descriptive, but concise, and the images themselves should have some relevance to the section topic.
 * Done -- Flewis (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Numbers and their units should appear with non-breaking spaces. (e.g. 16 miles should appear in Wiki markup as 16&amp;nbsp;miles ). Using the convert or nowrap templates will automatically add the necessary markup.
 * Done - used the "convert" template -- Flewis (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Either a percent sign (%) should be used or the word percent. It doesn't matter either way, as long as the article is consistent the whole way through.
 * Done -- Flewis (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The references section should not be used for notes (e.g. current ref #8), they should be in a separate note section.
 * Comment - How is this done? -- Flewis (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Template:Ref. You use the alternate ref template to link down to a notes page at the bottom. -epicAdam(talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ive added a "notes" section -- Flewis (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some references are missing publishers and access dates (e.g. current ref #24).
 * Comment - 24 looks fine. . .?? Otherwise, I've checked over the article with the Link checker tool, and removed any dead links -- Flewis (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now number 36 "UPDATE ON PIGEON MANAGEMENT ISSUE", missing publisher and access date. There are also many, many, improperly formatted references left. If you're going to use the "cite" template, great. Then all the references should use it. -epicAdam(talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's about all of them. Could you please check that all the ref's are now formatted properly? -- Flewis (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All references to books should have pages numbers (e.g. current ref # 32).
 * References have to be formatted consistently the entire way through the article, either with a template or manually. There are citation variations all over the place.
 * Some references are not appropriate such as "Australian Bureau of Statistics 1961". That tells the reader absolutely nothing about how to go about finding the data.
 * Done Fixed up most/all of the refs. Are there any more that need to be fixed? -- Flewis (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - Fixed up only the first references in each group, so as to avoid redundancy. -- Flewis (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done - First, there's no such thing as redundancy in citations, they all have to be formatted properly, even if many came from the same place. Second, it's still not a proper citation. What is the actual publication?? "Australia Bureau of Statistics 1961" seems like just the publisher. Is it the actual document the census of Australia? Is it a community survey? Is it a book/pamphlet/magazine? If so, what is the page number?


 * The URLs of web references do not need to be written out in the citation, just appear as a link within the title.
 * Comment - Which references in particular? -- Flewis (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples:
 * Dr Robert Lee (2003). "Chapter 6: Transport and the Making of Cities, 1850-1970". Linking a Nation: Australia's transport and communications 1788-1970. www.environment.gov.au (This should be the Australia Environment Ministry, or whatever its called, since that is the actual publisher.)
 * "Garrett approves Port Phillip Bay dredging". ABC News. www.abc.net.au (5 February 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-18.


 * Section headers should not be linked (for example, in the religion section). In fact, the religion section should not even have those headers and is far too long.
 * Done - removed header links.
 * Comment - What exactly is the problem with the religion section? -- Flewis (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its far too long with too many subheaders. Check out WP:SUMMARY and the demographics sections of other GA and FA articles. Religion should perhaps be a paragraph within the demographic section and at most has its own subheading simply titled "Religion", not have individual headers for each faith. The article also delves into WP:POV sentences like "As a community Hindus live relatively peacefully and in harmony with the local populations." What does that even mean?? and again, "Since the World trade center attacks and the Bali bombings, Islams place in Melbourne and indeed, Australian society has been the subject of much public debate.[125][126] The role of Islam and Muslims in terrorism and extremism are discussed in the media. A number of forums and meetings have been held about the problem of extremist groups or ideology within the Australian Islamic community.[127][128]" So what relevance does this have? This should be present in the article Islam in Australia, not here.
 * I noticed this and took it upon myself to edit this section before I actually read this ... some good points raised here --Biatch (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SUMMARY, the "Main" and "See also" links should be specific to Melbourne itself, not Australia or the state of Victoria as a whole.
 * Done - removed -- Flewis (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CRYSTAL, articles should not project future population growth.
 * Comment - This is official projected growth which is verified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics . I think WP:IAR can apply in this case -- Flewis (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree on this. ABS data isn't some rampently speculative data - it's the government published information. Saying that, featured city articles don't seem to include future population growth. Mvjs  Talking  06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because information comes from a reliable source does not necessarily mean that it can be included. As Mvjs has correctly pointed out, no other city articles provide future-dated population data, because the community has a general guideline that such information is trivial and heavily subject to change, and therefore should not be included. -epicAdam(talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The projected group within the population growth table has been removed and merged with this article instead:Demographics of Melbourne. Other than that, toward the end of the 'Demographics section', information remains from ABS on Melbourne's projected growth rate vis-a-vis Sydney's growth rate. Will this also need to be removed? -- Flewis (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Gallery" section is not appropriate. At most, it should be in the external link section.
 * Done - Link to commons picture gallery -- Flewis (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The commons category is already linked on the right. Mvjs  Talking  06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the breadth of these issues, Melbourne will be put on hold. Once the WP:Manual of Style problems are fixed, I will offer a second review. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the late review, I've had little time as of recent. However, upon reviewing the article again, there are still problems with the article including images that still appear left-aligned next to section headers (often a result of far too many images) and improperly formatted references. A number of images are unnecessary (the lithographs and watercolors in the history section, and the tiny image of Hoddle Grid, for example) and removing them out would avoid the "bunching up" effect that causes the text to render awkwardly. As for the citations, there are still books without page numbers (The Gentrification of inner Melbourne), websites without access dates ("Cost of living — The world's most expensive cities". City Mayors.), and a hodgepodge of formatting styles, for example: "The Land Boomers. By Michael Cannon. Melbourne University Press; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1966" and "Lewis, Miles (Melbourne the city's history and development) p47", neither of which are properly formatted. I would highly suggest using a wiki reference generator or the built-in citation tool (you can turn it on in your user preferences) to properly format the citations. The article will fail for now, please renominate when ready. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)