User talk:Hamiltonstone/Archive 5

Great Southern Group (again)
In case you didn't notice, I asked the advice of an experienced GA reviewer, as I know I can sometimes be rather demanding. He said the article looked GA standard apart from the need to explain how GS's type of MIS works. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes I noticed that. But the more I read my 'own' article, the less I liked it anyway. I've been doing some housekeeping on the references. I'm going to tryand introduce the more detailed account of how an MIS operates. I'm also thinking of integrating the politics section into the chronological 'rise and fall' account. Once these points are addressed I'll ask you if you'll check it over and tick it off for GA. Then I'll have another think about remaining structural problems, and tackle the archiving issue. I'm grateful for your persistence. I'd like to try this at FAC at some point, so it's all useful stuff. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the new structure. The description of a GS MIS is better, but still unclear in places (see Talk:Great_Southern_Group/GA1). At present it's unclear whether a GS MIS is a good deal or a bad one, even without the later worry about lower harvests. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More comments on how GS schemes work - see Talk:Great_Southern_Group/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you intend to clarify the attractions of these managed forestry schemes? At present I don't their attractions even at GS's foecast range of $1500 to $4500, never mind the lower actual yields. --Philcha (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you intend to do any more to clarify the investment proposition? At present I don't see the attractions of these schemes. Suppose the investor has a max tax rate of 45%. Then the new cost = $300 GST + (55% of $3000) = $1950. Sales at the mid-point of GS's forecast of range are $3000 + $3246 = $ 6246 but that's subject to income tax, as well as GS's charges. If the investor's max rate that time (guesstimate) is 35% (lower, in the case of an investoor who retired in the meantime and therefore had a lower tax band) then the post-tax pay-out is $4060. I.e. at the midd-point of GS's forecast the investors' money doubles in 10 years. I'm sure many less risky and more liquid investments would have achieve roughly similar returns in 10 years. Are there any sources that spell out the attratcios - e.g. a GS prospectus? --Philcha (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll try and get on to this. I was hunting briefly for some non-forestry GS stuff (eg Almonds) without success, but it wasn't a very thorough search. I'll get back to this ASAP. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've passed Great Southern Group as a GA. I still think there's a lot of improvement, but I'm aware that I tend to be a perfectionist about content issues. Thanks for your hard work and patience. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Danie Mellor
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. My short answer to your question is that the article is already at what I consider to be GA standard. A photograph of him would be useful but not essential. You might consider a list of major works. I would just nominate it as is and see how it goes. For FA, some better quality sources may be needed, such as scholarly reviews might be needed

Just so it is clear, I have no background in art or art history and just about the sum total of what I know about the subject I learned in researching the articles I have written, which has been a lot of fun. My main interest is writing articles about dead cricketers! I was inspired to write the articles when I realised there was no article on Shearing the rams; a painting even a philistine like me knew was a significant Australian painting. A look in Category:Australian paintings was disheartening and I thought that I do a little bit to populate it a little more.

I am still amazed that it seems that every album released in Australia has an article but there was not one article on any work by Roberts, Streeton, Drysdale, McCubbin, Boyd and any number of dead white Australian painters (unlike my dead white Australian cricketers!). There was however one about a a work by Nolan. Visual arts is a little neglected corner of the Australian WikiProject and I hope I have done a little bit to improve our coverage a little. Cheers and good luck with the GA attempt. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking a look; and thanks for those painting articles. I had looked at your contribs and thought 'wow, renaissance man: cricket and art!' So: great job! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the GA, just confirmed my initial impression. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement
I had to mark many of your starting comments as unactionable because of original research policy and the rest. The authors in the background section are derived from the material presenting in sources on Christopher Smart's madness. OR would not allow for any other authors besides them, and Verifiability would require keeping to the arguments as presented within the sources on the matter. Then you question why the "asylum" section does not begin with St Luke's. That would not follow any sort of chronology, nor would it deal with the events leading up to admittance at St Luke's. You state that the lead does not mention this, although it clearly does: "he may have been confined in a private madhouse before then".

As such, I had to mark your comments inactionable as it would require a destruction of the article and violations of multiple policies to meet your demands. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded again. Don't be offended by my brisk manner - you are a strong reviewer. I just feel the need to make it clear about certain issues that are there because of policy reasons or other such things so people know that I cannot bend on them (and would most likely rather see a FAC fail then have to submit to certain things such as violating various policies). As i stated, I can forward you copies of Keymer and Mounsey (however, I think they may also be accessible on google books - if you can't find them, I can link you). I also have copies of all of -their- sources, as I have written many articles on Smart and I am soon to publish an updated bibliography on the poet. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I covered most of your concerns but I don't know at the moment. Also, someone left some comments at the Little Gidding GAN review, but made it clear they just wanted to point some stuff out and were letting you do the full thing. Ha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is something new? From what I remember, mankind has always referred to both males and females. However, seeing as how people want to remove "gender" from words like History, I could be missing something. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not something new, something old, in the world in general, and in the guidelines at MOS. This really is a very old debate, as I think I have on other occasions said to editors, including Malleus. And no, I don't think it will ever extend to a standardised adoption of herstory, or would that be theirstory :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that "mankind" was always seen as gender neutral before. :P Anyway, I responded toy our comments and buried a link to the poem so you can get a better sense about some of your concerns. There would be an easier poem summary except that the poem is in copyright until 2020, so there cannot be more than a use of 4-5 excerpts from the poem without explicit permission from the copyright holder (as it is a short poem and anything more could seriously infringe, especially since they are historically very litigious). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I addressed all of your points now, and some will have to be discussed more in-depth. Some of your concerns are things that cannot be met simply because of the limitations of WP:OR. Other problems stem from the poem being in copyright until 2020. 75.105.195.248 (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason, Wiki decided to log me out. Blah. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, how much is left of your oppose on the Christopher Smart FAC? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made changes. By the way, you can ask me to make any reviews, peer reviews, etc, in return. There is no possibility of a lack of objectivity, so it wouldn't be inappropriate. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some changes at Little Gidding (poem). Apparently, I misspelled Guido's name. I hope I added enough information to contextualize Guido and why he may be important. I also fixed the Yeats connection, as that was absurdly disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also made some tensing fixes that were overlooked along with some other things. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Historian/GA1
I was wondering when you might be getting back to this. Awadewit (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was partly waiting 'til it seemed you were back on deck, and i'm also trying to sort out a messy GA nom i'm near the end of. My only issue is the plot summary, but i'm yet to have any brainwaves about what to do. Will get back to it in the next day or so i hope. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed everything. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: child labor in Diamond
Thanks. The problem is I will be asleep within minutes. IMO, "work in progress" may not be used as a shield, especially at FAs, such as diamond which has up to 10k views per day. I already see POV there (oh dear, child labor in Zimbabwe). Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i face the same problem, and i see looming POV too, but i don't want to push too far. Mind you, you are right, it's a lot of page views. We'll have to get there as soon as we can. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hugh de Mapenor
I think I've addressed most of your concerns... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, yes - see my minor comments at the review page. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port
Thankyou very much for your comments and support at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA Review
Thanks very much for your GA Review, I have responded to your comments, at Talk:Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard/GA1. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional comments. I have addressed these as well, and responded accordingly at the GA Review subpage. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm going to leave it for about 24 hours, in case other involved editors want to have a say, then I will look at closing out the GA as a pass. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: FYI, I expanded on the Singer info, so now there is something on the expert witness testimony that is more than simply listing the individual that appeared as an expert witness in the case. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I also expanded a bit more on the Landmark position, with additional statements from their attorney from secondary sources . Cirt (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to have another look? :) Cirt (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Made a change in response to your comments, and responded again at the GA Review subpage: . I will defer to your objective views in the matter. Thank you for your continued attention. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, some notes for you about the biography Outrageous Betrayal: It was published by a large publisher, St. Martin's Press, and written by an author with a specialization in legal journalism. It received positive reviews in Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Booklist, and The Washington Post. The book was cited as a reference for background information on the topic, in testimony before the United States House of Representatives, and has also been cited in books on psychology, cults, and new religious movements. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't question that the Pressman bio is a reliable source, only that it is dated in respect of certain developments following the court decision. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I responded to your most recent points from the GA Review, significantly trimming out and removing a large amount of sourced material, as you have suggested. Please see . Thanks again so much for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another minor change to help address this . I hope this is now satisfactory. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:GAN discussion
Hi Hamiltonstone. I've initiated a discussion about your recent actions on WT:GAN. I would appreciate it if you drop a comment there. --Edge3 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably should take the time to explain exactly what I'm complaining about. I'm usually a very reliable person, so when I say I'll get something done, I will get it done. When someone else (on Wikipedia or in real life) tries to take over my job or task, however, I feel insulted. It just feels like that person is challenging my reliability.
 * I have no doubt that you are an excellent GA reviewer, and I hope that we meet again under friendlier circumstances. However, I feel that you crossed ethical boundaries by starting the review. I do realize that good people can make terrible mistakes, so I really have no grudges against you. What you did is highly unlikely to happen again. --Edge3 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have responded at WT:GAN as you suggested. I am sure you are reliable, no one has suggested otherwise. I did the work on that particular review article before i realised there was another volunteer. I am very surprised you think these are not friendly circumstances - this just seems like the usual interchange between editors and reviewers managing the workflow here. In my experience, there's nothing particularly unusual about what happened and i was quite unpurturbed - I'm sorry it has caused you some difficulty. I do not believe any ethical boundaries were crossed, nor that a mistake was made, let alone a "terrible" one. But in any case, you are right this is unlikely to happen again - it was just an unfortunate coincidence of editing tasks. I'm afraid it happens all the time on WP, but it usually gets sorted out in a friendly way at talk pages. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't mean to ignore you. I need to get to school in an hour, but I'll get back to you in the afternoon. --Edge3 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's definitely good to know that this turned out well. Hope to see you again soon!--Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job on the review! It was definitely better than anything I could have done. --Edge3 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Giro d'Italia reviews
I got your comment and read them at the WT:GAN section last night. After some thought and review, I apologized Nosleep for my lack of experience on the review of his comments for his time issue and my overly strict enforcement of the seven-day rule and advised him to resubmit his articles for GA with me not acting as a reviewer in the future if he does. Even though I ruffled some feathers on this, I think this is the right thing to do. Chris (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Just one thing though - Nosleep is a 'she'. And I don't think you have to excuse yourself from being the reviewer - it was just very bad luck on nosleep's part that she went through what she went through at that particular moment. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand why you think I should return as a reviewer for this article, but I think someone else should do it as a matter of ethics and I had made a promise not to review it if it was resubmitted and I intend to keep this promise. Chris (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it is always wise to do as one promises :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Many thanks for your thorough and objective GA Review. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thank you for being prompt, thorough and supportive of changes. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bethena GAR
Thanks for your comments. I've replied to your very helpful points and I'll amend the article very soon and get back to you. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article and amended it as suggested.Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the effort you've put in reviewing this article.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

George McTurnan Kahin GAR
Thank you for reviewing and passing the article on George McTurnan Kahin. Apparently I had missed the information on his surviving family members in The New York Times (silly me). They have now been added into the article. Cheers! Arsonal (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Hamiltonstone. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I would support you for such if you ever ran. You stick to your beliefs, you are diligent when it comes to policy, and any fights you have are over your reluctance to allow any problems slip by, which is important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. i will run at some stage I think, but at the moment there are two reasons not to. The first is that I lack experience in some particular areas. I have very little to do with article deletion for instance. The other is that I would seldom make use of the tools I think. My main role at WP is as a reviewer (at GA mainly, but also FA and DYK), and generally the mop isn't needed there. But it would be good to help at AfD, and to be able to do all tasks at DYK, not just clearing articles for use on the main page. Maybe next year... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me
Thank you for this. However, I must say that it is a disappointing outcome. A new user with potential makes a mistake and then disappears. The chance for a decent person in the area becomes nothing. Sigh. If you see any other articles of hers that have problems, you can notify me and I will try to rewrite them so at least the articles are undamaged by such problems. I will need some time before I have an opportunity to do so, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing. I'm not sure though if you are referring to the problem at Flore et Zéphire, because if so, we should be reassured that I don't think that is why the editor has become inactive - her last edit was about 8 days before that issue was identified. Actually the very last edits she did were at Ode on Indolence, a subject not entirely popular with you just at the moment I see :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the poem. I don't love the liberties some people took with interjecting things in that go against the sources because they have some view that is not upheld in the sources or in our policies. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:England
Yes, after the impressive amount of discussion there was consensus (somewhat):). As you noted, though, the weasel words issue is going to be a problem - that was one of my original concerns in regards to the article, as well as the lack of "contemporary" history. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Great Southern Group
Basically, just replace the url that it's currently listed in the ref with the url that one ends up with when the link is clicked. Wizardman 01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN
You've been reviewing that article for over a month now. Pass it or fail it already, it's not helping the backlog fron GAN. --93.122.228.200 (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kedarnath Wild Life Sanctuary
Hi!Hamiltonstone,

I was hoping that you would find some time to edit the above article and rmove the tag. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may....
You must drink Dos Equis because you look like one interesting person. Nice page, thoughtful posts. Thanks for your contributions on the Prop 8 talk page, I wasn't going to even try to rebut. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thank you. Actually, I don't believe we have Dos Equis in my part of the world, so I had to see the website before I understood the reference. Doing my best to maintain the middle ground at Prop 8 - mostly I find editors constructive there once offered compromise proposals. See you about. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Live Like We're Dying
Thank you for the tip about 8frÜitz the nominator's contribution history. Perhaps a checkuser is in order. --PFHLai (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
Thanks for the barnstar! I try to take care of the little things so that everybody else can focus on the important things. Good luck on your FAC! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC Comments
Thanks for commenting on the FAC, I responded. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:England
Thanks for the barnstar! Hopefully the article should be ready for GA soon. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar too, article just about ready I think. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me as well - though I contributed far, far less than many other people, and I'm a bit worried about what some of my Welsh colleagues will think of me parading a barnstar that says "For England".....! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK and opera
Hi, thanks so much for getting in touch with the Opera Project. I've left a response to your message there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Article size
If you click edit, the size in KB is displayed at the top of the page. Or you can copy and paste text into a word doc and use the tools, word count, facility.  Ty  23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images
Which image or images do you want? It shouldn't be that hard to upload it. The hard part is coming up with the fair use justification. Please see File:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg for an example of what's needed, and Non-free content for the guideline. Eubulides (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka
I think it's a great article, and I'd be supporting if only the issue of an image of one of her paintings was resolved. I just can't see an article on a painter that doesn't have an image of at least one of her works as a plausible FA, or even a GA come to that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was afraid this would become a sticking point. I'm hard at work on this, and hope I will have a resolution by next week. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka (2)
I somehow didn't notice your review request until now. It's outside what I usually review, but it's reasonably short and if people only reviewed things in their area of interest then articles like this probably wouldn't get any reviews at all, so I'll try to have a look later this week, once I finish with Thomas R. Marshall. If you find yourself with free time, a comment here would be not unwelcome (though I'm certainly not trying to suggest any quid pro quo, especially since I believe you've reviewed my FACs before, and I haven't reviewed yours). Steve Smith (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try and look at Reid, but not until i first get to J. C. W. Beckham! Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse that; I think Beckham got a raw deal last time, so the more reviewers that hit it this time the better. Cheers. Steve Smith (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to be a beggar, but Reid's been open for a while now and is suffering from a lack of reviews. If you don't have time, or if you can't get past the first paragraph without falling asleep, I quite understand, but if you can manage it I really would appreciate a review. Steve Smith (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bill
Hi

You recently reviewed The Bill for a good article and put it's status on hold. I'm afraid I have quite a few questions as I don't understand a lot of the pointers you put across for improving it.

First of all you say a lot of the references don't have any details of who published them or when they were retrieved. When you say published, I take it you're meaning the newspaper or website that the news came from? Is the retrieval date, the publish date? If not, how do I get this?
 * Citations of news articles should incldue the date of the news story. Retrival dates should be used for all webpage references (news or otherwise), and are the dates on which you viewed the webpage. More on this can be seen here: Citing_sources, which includes information on citation templates, which can make the job easier.

You say that the production section is not always NPOV. What's an NPOV?
 * Neutral point of view, one of Wikipedia's core principles. Some of the language is not neutral in tone. I'll get back to you about other stuff later. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You ask how the police procedures are filmed. I don't think The Bill has never ever released that information to us before. I've got a funny feeling it might be the real police that's stopped them doing that for whatever reason. If I can't get that information, how can I include it in the article? Also a lot of the actors are unknown before they come into The Bill so I don't know how we can really write about their careers. The actors that are worthwhile mentioning in The Bill already have their own Wikipedia pages anyway that are linked to on The Bill's page.

You say that the DVD section is unreferenced. What sort of references is it needing? Is it proof for when the DVDs were released? Again that's not information I can find so how can I find it out? If I'm not able to find it out what can I put in the article to state that we cannot get this information?
 * There should be references for any information in an article that is not common knowledge. Wikipedia encourages 'common knowledge claims to be restricted to some limited types of information. See Common knowledge for examples. Release dates etc of DVDs would not fall into that category. So where do you find the information? If you can establish what company released the DVD, then try their website. Or you can try the packaging of DVD itself, if you or another editor has access to it. Such sources are not usually treated as reliable sources in general, but should be acceptable for basic factual information about their products such as when something was released or in what country/ies. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You also ask about data on ratings. This is again something we can't seem to get. I've looked on BARB's website but they don't seem to do programme-by-programme, only for the channels. How do we get ratings programme-by-programme? I did try doing a Google search for this, but the newest ratings I could find were nearly 3 months old! Wikipedia is supposed to be up-to-date so waiting 3 months on ratings is not any help!
 * WP isn't supposed to be up-to-date - its most important feature is reliability. Ratings data over the history of the program would be useful - the current ratings are no more important than past ratings. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi I've made some changes to the page today. Can you please have a quick look and see if this is what you are meaning?  I also tried to change the refs today to show the article author etc but this doesn't seem to be showing?  I remember when I added the James Mulholland reference I added the URL only, the name etc appeared afterwards I think.  I tried re-adding the other links the exact same way as I added this one and nothings changed.  I know in the James Mulholland reference it says cite web and I definitely didn't add that.  Maybe that's something that's added by a bot?  What are we best to do here?  --5 albert square (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I've been trying to make further changes to the article tonight but have been unable to do so as I don't understand what you're meaning in some of the parts. You say that to the cast tables there should be a lead-in section.  Can I ask what should be in the lead-in section?  I could only think to put "characters currently appearing in The Bill" but then that's kind of obvious as they wouldn't be in the characters table otherwise!  I also thought about putting their ranks but then that's already in the tables so it would just be repeating the information which seems kinda pointless.  --5 albert square (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead-in can be as simple as something like: "Over the last x years there have been y characters [if this info can be found anywhere] on The Bill. The current cast list is:" But you also need a reliable source for the current cast. Anyone in a country where The Bill is not broadcast would have no way of checking whether the list is accurate or a hoax. Such hoaxes do happen on WP from time to time, which is one reason why providing references is so important. For cast members, an official program website would be OK. Try to avoid fansites - they are generally (with exceptions) not regarded as reliable. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I've made some major changes today to the cast section, really totally re-written it, have included a section on notable past cast members and now have a reference for an up-to-date cast list. I've taken out the section about Jeff Stewart trying to commit suicide on set as I felt that really belonged to the actors page.  Can you please look at this when you get a second because that's one of the parts you suggested changing, that I wasn't 100% sure what you meant --5 albert square (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)



Dick Smith Move
Eeep... thanks for picking that up, I double checked the spelling but I must be blind. Just so you know the main intention of the move is for the purposes of making Dick Smith (retailer) (formerly Dick Smith Electronics) the main focus of Dick Smith as a result of the rebranding of the former Dick Smith Electronics. Twistie.man (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog of stuff to do
Wanna "backed up" contest, huh, huh" I'm reviewing 5 for GA (2 of these are backed up themselves), and 2 more GA reviews of "my" GA candidates started yesterday!!! Good luck with the FAC. --Philcha (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bill GAC
Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a quick look at The Bill when you get chance to review some of the recent changes that have been made to it. I have undertaken a major copyedit, the references are now properly formatted and all relevant information is in the footnotes and there has been a great deal of tweaking and fiddling by myself, user:5 albert square and several other users over the last few days. It's not quite ready- there are still a few things I'm not happy with and a few sentences needing references and other things that are fixable. If you'd take a look and offer any constructive criticism here, on my talk page or on the article's, I would be much obliged. Regards, HJMitchell    You rang?   15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you please take a look at the article as a matter of urgency? It's just that someone has left a comment on the talk page which has left me with the impression that the edits I've made this week have all been wrong.  I only added what was requested, yet apparently the article is now too long?  And apparently there is too many lists?  The only thing that resembles a list that I added was about notable former cast members because I was asked to add it?  The only lists apart from that is to differentiate the difference between rankings between the officers?  We could, I suppose, just list them paragraph wise such as Senior Officers: Superintendent Jack Meadows played by Simon Rouse, Inspector Dale Smith played by Alex Walkinshaw, DI Neil Manson played by Andrew Lancel.  However that would not be very clear.  I'll not do any edits until I hear from you again as apparently I've made the article now a quick fail?  --5 albert square (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not got much time at present - just quikcly: first and foremost, you and HJ Mitchell in particular have improved the article significantly since the start of this process, so that is great. Second, you've improved your WP skills and worked out issues such as better referencing, that will be good both for this article in future, so that;s great too. Yes, the article is still a fair way from GA,and my list of issues when I first did the review was not comprehensive. I suggest you read the embedded list policy to which silk tork has provided a link i think, then perhaps chat with HJ Mitchell about this as well. I don't think turning those lists into paras is going to be a good answer, but I haven't time now to provide detailed input. I won't be closing the review without further discussion with yourself and other cotnributing editors. Don't worry - you aren't going to log in one day and find it's just been failed. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to drop by my talk page. I also think you're owed thanks for your efforts with The Bill- it hasn't gone unnoticed that you've gone above and beyond what's expected of a reviewer. I've read Silk's comments and will certainly take heed of those and assist 5asq in doing the same. I agree that there is a lot to be done before the article is of GA quality, but much progress has been made and there is a kind of gritty determination to get the job done by 5asq, myself and a few other editors. We all have the rather tricky business of the "real world" to which we must attend and I notice you have a lot on your "wiki-plate" as well but when you get chance, it would be very much appreciated if you could scrutinise the minutiae of the recent changes. Feel free to drop me a line with any concerns or comments in the meantime and, as a favour, if you ever need a copyeditor, you know where I am! Until then, thanks for your time and I'm sure we'll speak soon. HJMitchell   You rang?   04:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC) PS, I hope you don't mind, but I put your last sentence above in bold, since it was a point I felt needed reiterating! Sorry! HJMitchell   You rang?


 * Hi, thanks for the feedback, I was just worried that I'd actually ended up making the article worse instead of better. I've actually also messaged Silk asking for their help because if I'm honest, I didn't understand some of what they wrote and the Wikipedia links they provided just confused me more because they're so in-depth!  I looked at the link to expand the introduction bit but I really can't think of anything I can add to the introduction.  I did once put the Scotland bit in the introduction but someone removed it from there saying it wasn't important enough to be mentioned there.  That would be the only thing I could think of adding to it.  Anyway, I've asked Silk to try and help with the article and also for their suggestions on how it can be less list-like.  Thanks for the compliments as well, I actually didn't know you could reference Wikipedia like that, thought the dates etc were added by bots!  --5 albert square (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka
Congratulations on Makinti Napanangka - I've just promoted it to featured article :) I am unfamiliar with skin names, and wanted to check with you that this is being filed properly.  Should it be under N (for Napanangka) or M for Makinti?  I am going to file it under N at first; if this is wrong feel free to change it yourself or let me know and I will make the change. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. i owe a debt to several others, most of whom only came across the article at FAC, copyedited and then supported it. You have identified a good question - in fact, despite skin names meaning that the other names are the truly 'individual' names, the majority - but not all - of the reliable sources index them alphabetically by skin name! So, i would file it under N as you proposed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done. After the first one it usually becomes pretty easy  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain it ever gets any easier, but you've now established a format for articles on Indigenous Australian artists that may help others, as well writing a damn fine article yourself. A double win. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the barnstar! Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fossils of the Burgess Shale
Hi, hamiltonstone, I've just posted at the GA page. IMO the "theoretical" bit is all pieces of one big jigsaw, and the problem is finding the signpost phrases. --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka painting Rocks at Lupulnga
Hi, I noticed you had the name of the painting in the Makinti Napanangka article incorrectly spelled as 'Rocks at Lupulunga'. I corrected it in the article but also the link, only to find the filename needs the incorrect spelling for the link to work. I've change the filename back to the original spelling but I think it would be good to correct it. I'm not sure how to change the filename and, since it appears the legitimacy of having the image there is still being sorted out, I thought I'd better just ask you to correct it. The correct title is 'Rocks at Lupulnga' (the rockhole is called 'Lupul' and the '-nga' is a locative suffix) as I've corrected it in the article body. cheers, Dougg (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

re: MWICPS
Yes, thanks for reminding me about this article. I was going to revisit it, but forgot about it. Clearly, there are some COI and ownership issues here. I, too, have some doubts about its notability, so I'll list it for wider input. decltype (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
... for the barnstar! It's lovely to be appreciated! Frickeg (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!
It's great to be back! How thoughtful you are to greet me -- and send me the pretty, cheerful balloons! I've taken a look around and all seems fine. I'm thrilled you took the initiative to move my articles off the GA page. I'm so sorry I couldn't do it myself. Thank you for taking things in hand! I can't wait to get back to work. I love this place! All the best! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Update on The Bill
Hi, I've left a few more comments at the GA page. There's been a lot of work gone into it over the last few days and I'm beginning to think we're getting there. Obviously, there's work to be done yet, but I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the article and my comments. Any input would be appreciate. Much obliged, HJMitchell    You rang?   16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hamiltonstone! I've done a little work on The Bill's article tonight, I've added more info on the homosexual relationship between Sergeant Gilmore and PC Ashton, however it's no more than 3 sentences.  I was going to start work on referencing the notable cast members part tonight, but I have a question.  It was me that put together that section and I got the majority of my information from Wikipedia.  Can I use Wikipedia as the source or does that not count?  --5 albert square (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not count as a source. You need to look up the sources that were used for the facts you found on another WP page, or find sources yourself. Yes, it could be a big job for that particular section - i think it probably is the largest amount of work needed on this article. Let's see how it goes. At this stage, however, I would not delete the ones you don't have refs for. Leave them there, see if HJM finds anything, or other editors too. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steve Dodd
The article Steve Dodd you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Steve Dodd for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bronwyn Bancroft
The article Bronwyn Bancroft you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bronwyn Bancroft for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I feel like others would have been more rude. It sucks relisting an article for GA and God knows it sure takes a long time for an article to be promoted. I have one that's been waiting since September for review. The reason I failed you, rather than put you on hold is because you still have issues with prose (grammar). A lot of issues. Including some spelling errors WP:SPELL. I purposely did not mention them all because there are too many. However, I apologize for not simply stating there was an issue with grammar and only acknowledging it with a gray symbol beside 1A and a copy edit suggestion in #7. Another reason I failed the article and said it needed a peer review is b/c I don't think it's the job of the GA reviewer to peer review (or copy edit) an article. I think it's a GA reviewer's job to see if it meets GA standards and to pass or fail it. If your only issue was with the three dead links, then I would have placed this article on hold because those are very simple fixes (after all, if you can't find a replacement ref, you can just delete the sentence). With that said this article still needs a peer review. Here are specific instances where there's a problem:


 * Lead
 * "Bancroft's firt works were in fabric design, and she established a shop selling both her own and others' designs, Designer Aboriginals." There's a spelling mistake and you don't need a comma in front of and. Personally, I would put a period because I think it sounds better. Suggestion: ''"Bancroft's first works were in fabric design. She established a shop called Designer Aboriginals where she sells both her own and other Indigenous artists['] fabrics.
 * better, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "A children's book illustrator, Bancroft has provided art work for over twenty books, including Stradbroke Dreaming by writer and activist Oodgeroo Noonuccal, as well as works by artist and writer Sally Morgan." Suggestion: "As a children's book illustrator, Bancroft has provided art work for over twenty books, including Stradbroke Dreaming by writer and activist Oodgeroo Noonuccal, as well as other books by artist and writer Sally Morgan. I would say books rather than works because in the first part of your sentence you refer to her art as work and books as books. I think it's more clear to keep it that way, in the second part of the sentence.
 * better, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "She is a past or present member of the boards of the National Gallery of Australia, the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, copyright collection agency Viscopy, and Tranby Aboriginal College." Generally not a good idea to mix past and present in the same sentence. This sentence needs to be broken up into two separate sentences. The first one stating something to the effect of "She has served as a board member at..." and the second sentence "She is currently a board member at..."
 * better, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Life and Training
 * "Her father, Bill, was a Bundjalung Indigenous man, while her mother was of Scottish and Polish ancestry" Two things: [1] If they're still alive this sentence should be present tense (is as opposed to was). [2] Her father being a man is kind'of obvious. I would change the sentence to mirror how you described her mother's nationality. Suggestion: "Her father, Bill, is of Bundjalung Indigenous ancestry while her mother is of Scottish and Polish ancestry."
 * The tense issue was my mistake in reading the source - her father was, her mother is. "Man" is there in part to avoid the repetition of the word ancestry, and I will leave it as it stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "She completed high school in Tenterfield, and has lived in Canberra. In 2009 she was living in Sydney with her three children, Jack, Ella and Rubyrose." Another issue with past and present tense. It's better to use "as of" to describe a present situation that could change WP:TRITE, WP:AO. Suggestion: "She completed high school in Tenterfield, and later moved to Canberra. As of 2009, she is living in Sydney with her three children, Jack, Ella and Rubyrose."
 * Better, thanks. I'm never confident about WP policies about how to deal with current dates and events. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Administration and activism
 * "Bancroft is a member of the baord of the Australian copyright collection agency, Viscopy, and of the artists board of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney. She is on the board of Indigenous training organisation, Tranby Aboriginal College." Suggestion: "Bancroft is a member of the  board of directors  of the Australian copyright collection agency, Viscopy, and of the Artists Board of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney. She is also on the board of the Indigenous training organisation, Tranby Aboriginal College."
 * Better, thanks.
 * "Bancroft is a director of Indigenous education not-for-profit organisation, Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience." This sentence is very wordy WP:TRITE. Because of the title, readers will already know that it's an education program for Indigenous people. Suggestion: "Bancroft is the director of the not-for-profit organisation, Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience."
 * "Very" wordy? It has two surplus words, about which you are correct (though many Australian organisations that do things for Indigenous people are not Indigenous organisations, so arguably only one of the words is redundant). And she is not the director, she is a director (one of eight). Not sure why you are suggesting that change. Have i missed something? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant "very wordy" in the sense that it's a lot of big words one after the other. Not that it's a long sentence. Eight directors, really? Never heard of that. Do you mean one of eight on a board of directors? Where I'm from, when you say someone is a director of an organization, it's understood that they are the "executive director". When used in this way, director and executive director are synonyms. If the person is in fact a chairman or a treasurer (not the executive director) then they would be referred to by the specific title: the chairman of Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience or the treasurer of Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience. Or even on the board of directors of Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience. Not "a director" b/c director is equated with executive director (where I'm from that is). This seems like a cultural difference. Leave it as you wish. // Gbern3 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Major Collections
 * About half of the places listed (Artbank, Australian Museum, Kelton Foundation, Newark Museum) have no citations/references to prove that Bancroft's work is there WP:VERIFY. If Bancroft herself was mentioned in those place's respective articles, then I would be more understanding as to why they're listed w/o a citation because it proves that her work is well known enough to stand on it's own w/o a citation in the home article (Bancroft's article). But since she's not mentioned in those articles, it looks like more information that needs to be cited which is more work on your part. If ref 17 is the citation for all the above places, then use WP:REFNAME in order to cite it as such.
 * The latter is correct - 17 is the ref for all of them. I regularly use ref name (the ref in question is actually already such a reference), i just know some editors dislike repetitive tags like that, and I have seen cases at WP:FAC where they insist they be removed and replaced with a single ref at the end of the relevant material. Ironically enough, i normally favour repeating the ref, and am now doing so. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A single ref at the end, huh. Like you, I favor repeating. I guess it's a personal preference rather than policy. Do as you wish.


 * External Links
 * Not required for GA but could use . It looks like this. Since you don't have a "see also" section in this article, it would go in the "external links" section like this.


 * Can you see my POV now as to why I failed you? I think I caught all the prose issues. For a second opinion, there is a list of users here and here who you can request grammar/copy edit assistance from. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for you picking up a range of prose problems that i did not detect. It was my mistake not to print out and copyedit a hardcopy, a process I find usually works better than on-screen. A couple of the errors were in the new material i put in yesterday and which i hadn't had time to check at all, which is, again, my fault. You indicated at the start that there were a lot of prose issues, but you are also saying the list above captures them all.
 * No, the list doesn't capture them all. I said "I think I caught" them all. After a second review, I discovered others. Again, grammar issues. They are mostly comma splices that I didn't pick up before. There are a few other suggestions that are not grammatically incorrect but I threw them in there because I thought they would make the meaning of sentences clearer. All suggestions are in the next subsection.
 * Over my own history of reviewing articles at GAN, i wouldn't rate that list as very substantial compared to the typical number of prose problems in a GA nom. But I'm glad of your points raised in the comments above, they have made the article stronger. I think we will have to agree to disagree about the process: see Reviewing good articles - i wouldn't have interpreted the overall approach outlined in that guideline the way you have, but that is your prerogative. I will relist at GAN. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read that page before. I don't consider the issues you had to be "minor" as the page says. True, they are simple problems to fix but they are also time consuming because of the amount of things you needed to fix (there's more below) and the amount of time it took for me to explain it. I think of minor as three or four errors. You had much more than this. I still think you should get a peer review. You practically already have one here. Perhaps you should create a PR page for Bancroft's article and copy and paste this entire conversation from your talk page to there. That way, all of this work you've already done will be archived with the history of the article instead of apart from it. Also, if you eventually want this article to reach FA status, you're going to have to get a peer review anyway. Might as well have this one on record, although it's not official. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd Review
In case you haven't noticed, I left responses for you above.

Lead
 * Bronwyn Bancroft (born 1958) is an Indigenous Australian artist and illustrator, and the first Australian fashion designer invited to show her work in Paris. You don't need a comma before the second "and". Read rule #13 and #14 here for an explanation.
 * changed hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Born in Tenterfield, New South Wales in 1958, and trained in Canberra and Sydney, Bancroft has worked as a fashion designer, artist, illustrator and arts administrator. [1] You need a comma after "illustrator". See rule #5 here and rule #1 here. There are a lot of comma splices like this one through out the article. [2] Not a condition for GA, but do you really need to respecify her year of birth when you already said so in the first sentence, in the "Life and training" section, and in the infobox?
 * I try to stick to ensuring there is no fact in the lead that is not also stated in the body text WP:LEAD, and this is one result of that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a children's book illustrator, Bancroft has provided art work for over twenty books, including Stradbroke Dreaming by writer... Nothing is wrong with this sentence. I just think you should start a new paragraph here because you move from talking about her art work to talking about her book illustrations. Not a GA thing, just a recommendation.
 * She has also received design commissions, including for the exterior of a sports centre in Sydney. Suggestion: She has also received design commissions, including one for the exterior of a sports centre in Sydney.
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Life and training
 * She has cited as influences Wassily Kandinsky, Marc Chagall and Australian Indigenous artists, particularly Emily Kngwarreye, Rover Thomas and Mary MacLean. You need a comma before both "and"s. See the links I provided above for explanation. Also, the way you phrased this sentence sounds like she is influenced by all the Indigenous artists living in Australia (literally all of them) with an inkling toward the three you mentioned. If the ref says this then that's fine the way you phrased it but if not I would change it to clarify just those three. It would also be helpful to clarify who Kandinsky and Chagall are. Are they artists, illustrators, designers, community activists? Suggestion: She has cited as influences Wassily Kandinsky, Marc Chagall, and Australian Indigenous artists Emily Kngwarreye, Rover Thomas, and Mary MacLean.
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After completing a Diploma of Visual Communications through Canberra School of Art, Bancroft undertook a Master of Studio Practice and a Master of Visual Arts (Paintings) at the University of Sydney. Nothing wrong with this sentence just have a suggestion for clarity: After completing a Diploma of Visual Communications through Canberra School of Art, Bancroft earned a Master of Studio Practice and a Master of Visual Arts (Paintings) at the University of Sydney.
 * Changed (though in a different way). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Art and design
 * Bancroft was a founding member of urban Indigenous art group, Boomalli Aboriginal Artists Co-operative, one of Australia's oldest Indigenous-run artists' organisations This sentence is repeating itself and could be more concise WP:TRITE. Suggestion: Bancroft was a founding member of Boomalli Aboriginal Artists Co-operative, one of Australia's oldest Indigenous-run artists' organisations.
 * Revised. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the late 1980s she opened a shop in Sydney, Designer Aboriginals, selling the work of Indigenous designers, including her own fabrics. This sentence needs a citation.
 * Now has one. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Two years later, in 1989, she also contributed to a London exhibition, Australian Fashion: The Contemporary Art. Despite these successes, she moved away from the fashion industry, telling an interviewer in 2005 that she had not done fabric design for fifteen years. There's nothing wrong with the first sentence. I have it here to explain to you what's wrong with the second. "in 1989" is informative information that would not change the meaning of the first sentence if taken out. Here you have used commas correctly. She moved away from the fashion industry is very important information (called a restrictive clause) that if taken out would mess up your second sentence. You don't need a comma before "telling". See Rule #4 here and Rule #11 here for a more technical explanation.
 * OK, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In 2004 Bancroft was commissioned to design a large mural, covering the exterior of a sports centre housing two basketball courts at Tempe Reserve in Marrickville, New South Wales. This sentence needs a citation especially since it has a year and specific location.
 * Cite is at end of the following sentence - all facts are covered by that ref. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It also includes the goanna, ancestral totem of the original Indigenous inhabitants, the Wangal people. Same thing as above. You don't need a comma before "the Wangal people" because the clause preceding it is necessary to convey the meaning of the sentence. I also think you could shorten the sentence. Not necessary just a recommendation: It also includes the goanna, ancestral totem of the Wangal people.
 * comma removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bancroft's first venture into illustrating children's books was in 1993, with Fat and Juicy Place written by Dianna Kidd. This sentence needs a citation.
 * This brought immediate success, with the book being shortlisted for the Children's Book Council of Australia's Book of the Year, and winning the Australian Multicultural Children's Book Award.' You don't need a comma before "and". Rule #13 here.
 * comma removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Administration and activism
 * Bancroft has been active in arts organisations, serving two terms on the board of the National Gallery of Australia in the 1990s. Needs a citation.
 * Covered by the next cite in the following sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both within and beyond her artistic works, Bancroft has demonstrated concern with a range of social issues, particularly those affecting Indigenous Australians. You don't need a comma after "issues". Bancroft has demonstrated concern with a range of social issues... is a restrictive clause. You need this information in order to maintain the meaning of your sentence. You would only need a comma if "particularly" was followed by a list: ...range of social issues, particularly homelessness, public health issues, and poverty. See rule #21 here for further explanation.
 * She has taught and mentored Indigenous school students including Jessica Birk, a winner of the Australia Council's inaugural Emerging and Young Artist Award in May 2009. Nothing wrong with this sentence, I just have some thoughts/suggestions. The word "including" usually denotes that you're going to mention more than one thing (or person in this case). Because you only mention Birk, I think you should change including to "such as". Do you need to specify "school"? Since you've stated she mentors students, school is understood. Was Birk a winner or the winner?
 * She was "a" winner: the choice was deliberate (IIRC there were two). One does need to specify "school", as they are not university students or college students (as I understand the scheme). Have changed to "such as", as suggested. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links
 * Not a GA thing but I think the link on the talk page would be more useful in the "external links" section of the article.

This is why I think this article needs a peer review. I didn't catch any of this the first time. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, with some 100+ GA reviews, I don't see that any of these are "deal breakers" on GA status. Frankly, a lot of them would be something I'd fix myself. And as a FA reviewer and nominator of 20 FAs, I have to point out that citations at the end of paragraphs are perfectly acceptable (and are perfectly acceptable in the academic world). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? :-/ Hi. The way you edit GA or FA articles you review is your preference. I definitely would not have edited this article if given the opportunity to do it over because I feel that the more you edit an article you're reviewing the less impartial you become as the reviewer. This article had too many errors for me to be impartial by the time I got done making corrections. In addition, a couple of the changes I suggested were not implemented. Hamiltonstone didn't want them. Since hamiltonstone is the most invested in this article and has put the most work into it, I feel the final decision about what changes should be made, should be left up to him/her. This article has been relisted at WP:GAN. If you really feel strongly enough about me failing this nomination to comment w/o introducing yourself or explaining why you care about this article in particular (honestly not being rude, just making a point) then just go pass it. As far as your comment about citations (at the end of lists), hamiltonstone and I have already established on our own that it's not wiki policy but a personal preference. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have Hamiltonstone's page watchlisted, that is why I commented. Also, as I said, I've reviewed quite a few GAs and FACs., and I'm somewhat interested in the quality of reviews at GA, especially as how they relate to the GA criteria. Perhaps you might want to double check those criteria? I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "grammatically correct in every way"... But, no, having commented here, I would not feel right to review the article at GAN. You might, however, want to consider that this is GA, not FAC. Some of what you're wanting isn't even required at FAC. As for not introducing myself, Hamilton knows me, and I did in fact sign, so it's not like it was an anonymous comment. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for introducing yourself. When having a long discussion with someone, it's very odd to all of a sudden receive a comment from a uninvolved 3rd person. I felt you were anonymous because your comment was directed toward me, not Hamilton. I do not yet know you. Yes, I realize this is for GA and not FA but remember FA use to be called "brillant prose" so I disagree with your assertion that some of what I'm asking would not be required for FAC. FA candidates actually require more such as images which this article does not have and which I did not ask for. As far as grammar in GAN articles, how to review is something we're going to have to respectfully disagree on. WP:GACR 1A clearly states "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct". Grammatically correct means grammatically correct. Grammatically incorrect is not correct. All of the suggestions I've listed in this section have to do with clarity, spelling, grammar, and inline citations (2B). I do not want to pass an article for the sake of passing an article just because it's fairly well written and the guidelines for GAs are lower than for FAs. This is actually against policy to do so. Read the third bullet point here. Pointing out these issues, including the other ones listed in GA criteria, only helps to improve the article and make it stronger. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to state that GA is not about being "impartial", it is about working together with a nominator to ensure an article is good. It requires a relationship between nominator and reviewer, and a close reading of the work for all possible errors by both people. It is not a "pass/fail" system, but one with people working to make a good article. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree with you. In the green box at the top of the GA nominations' page, it states "articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." To me, that means a reviewer needs to be impartial. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the page more fully: "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review." You can work with someone without having been the person who created the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This section has gone awry. Ealdgyth, you decline the offer to pass the article and instead go to Malleus Fatuorum's talk page to complain about me—not professional. You don't agree with me. I get it. What bothers me is that now this discussion is turning into argument and becoming less of a critique about the Bancroft article. It's crazy to me how much action this subsection has received when Hamiltonstone hasn't even commented at this point and it's on his/her talk page. Malleus Fatuorum is going to pass the article (I think?), so instead of adding more comments here, I only ask that we agree to list other complaints about my review in a new section on my talk page. Leave a message there. This section doesn't need to be any longer. // Gbern3 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is bloody ridiculous, so I've signed up to do the GA review. Properly this time. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Malleus Fatuorum is going to pass the article ...". I'm simply going to review the article against the GA criteria as I understand them. Until I've done that I've got no idea whether the article will pass or fail. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Per request, I hope no-one minds if I leave a comment here (with the caveat that, although I still lurk around, because I'm busy elsewhere I'm not actively involved in the GA WikiProject at the moment). Thank you Gbern3 for your very detailed response, in line with GA best practice, to Hamiltonstone's queries about the fail verdict, and also thank you Hamiltonstone for your patience! Because GA review is a one-reviewer process and the interpretation of the criteria depends greatly on the perceptions of the reviewer, we all know that different reviewers will work differently; as Malleus says above, "I'm simply going to review the article against the GA criteria as I understand them". We'd all have to say the same. Although this way of working will inevitably throw up the occasional dispute, it is supported by the GA community, and as I'm sure some remember, past efforts to change this have not met with community approval.
 * I think the concern over creeping standards is a very valid one - GA is supposed to be relatively easy to achieve, and (as in other quality review process) we all need to battle against the natural impulse to over-assess. However, each review is a learning process for both reviewer and nominator, and Gbern3 is now better aware of the requirements (and more importantly, the way in which they're generally interpreted). However, they have done nothing wrong by the letter of the criteria in not editing the article, and although they were perhaps being over-rigorous with their assessment, it was their judgement call. To address any concerns, it might have been more appropriate to have listed the article at WP:GAR or chatted to Gbern3 on their talkpage rather than opening discussion here, but everything is solvable between editors of goodwill, and none of this need be a big deal. All the editors that have contributed above are experienced, highly competent, and very knowledgeable, and because everyone's after the only thing that really matters - a decent-quality article - I have no doubt that this will be the end result. EyeSerene talk 10:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input and assistance. I was away for a couple of days, dropped in and found the above interchange, and have been doing some editing while I thought about what had happened. First, thank you to EyeSerene, who has said most of what i wanted to say, and did it better than i would have. Second, having re-worked the Bancroft article, particularly in response to Gbern3's feedback, it is much improved, and I thank Gbern3 for the helpful suggestions. Third, I am actually a bit embarrassed that I nominated Bronwyn Bancroft in the state it was in. Of the half-dozen or so articles i have taken through GA, this was the weakest, and the reviewers comments reflected that. I should have done some more preparation, though i don't think the prose standard was its weakest feature. As an illustration, this is the diff showing my revisions, since both Gbern3's initial suggestions and Malleus's copyedits were done. Finally, thank you to Malleus for picking up the second review. I had actually expected it to sit in the queue for a few weeks and took a print out home over a weekend to do a copyedit, and found Malleus already on the case. Of course, that meant he had to sort out some problems i picked up in the hard copy :-) Anyway, thank you to everyone, and i'll try to repay the commitment to the editing community that you all have shown here. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for the review on Good Shepherd (song) and the pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dinh
Replied  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)