Talk:Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia/GA1

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some references to single pages are written as pp. instead of p.
 * Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article is stable.
 * 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):
 * All images comply to fair use requirements and are properly captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All images comply to fair use requirements and are properly captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments: There is a small issue with the references section, but otherwise, this article meets all the criteria for a Good Article. My only other question is whether it's possible to find a Scientology image from Australia, rather than the current photo. Please let me know when these issues have been addressed.
 * Thank you very much for the review. I have gone through and checked all the the "p/pp" references and fixed the incorrect ones. I have looked for free images of Scientology churches in Australia but unfortunately the only ones I could find are of protests in front of Scientology buildings. That doesn't seem to have bothered the editors at Scientology in Australia but I'm concerned such pictures would be too prejudicial for an article that has little to do with Scientology. Anyway, next time I'm in Sydney I will do my best to take a picture of the Scientology headquarters myself to put it on Commons. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Thank you for all your hard work. I am satisfied that all the criteria for a Good Article have been met, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the external links section displaying twice?