Talk:Parliament House, Canberra/148463410FGANComments

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Yes, the prose is nice and readable. It manages to give a non-dull presentation of a building.  I really enjoyed the article.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: No, This is the main reason for failure. There are no sources.  An article cannot be a good article without sources.  Furthermore, I believe sources should be readily available.  Some of the comments on the history part especially describe peoples opinions and these places should be sourced.  I will go through and tag facts I think need sources.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: No, Thorough enough for a good article. I think the history section is plenty thorough.  The description of the building is good.  I believe the article has room for some more information about modern building design and use.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
 * 5. Article stability? Yes. Although this article seems to be subject to a lot of vandalism, including recently some date changing vandalism which reinforces the need for sources.
 * 6. Images?: Yes. The images are extraordinary. They're are enough and they are high quality and all seem to have proper licensing.  I would say the images are great for GA and possible even enough for FA.  I read the explanation for the impossibility of an aerial photo and that is regrettable.  Could you maybe contact government authorities and describe your need to see if they'll release a photo or point you in some direction?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Weston.pace 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)