Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shrine of Remembrance/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:34, 23 July 2008.

Shrine of Remembrance

 * Notified: Gsl, CJ, Figaro, Rebecca, MacGyverMagic, Fifelfoo, Chuq and WikiProject Australia

Featured article (promoted in 2004, hasn't been reviewed since) with a Template:morefootnotes is not a good sign. Looking at the article it is obvious that it doesn't fall under Featured article criteria - 1.(c) and 2.(c) as it has only one in-text citation and only two offline references.--Avala (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but unfortunately I have never seen the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance, so I do not feel qualified to make a comment or assumption about the article's criteria as a Wikipedia featured article - either for or against. Figaro (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bilby is working on this; see WP:AWNB and the article's history. —Giggy 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article still has "citation needed" tags.--Avala (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi - we've been adding them as we go along, mostly to make it clear to us what parts have been properly sourced and what could still do with one. They should be gone in a day or so - mostly they refer to information which is inferred by the sources, but that seems insufficient for a featured article. Thus they'll either be properly sourced, reworded to match reliable sources, or the text will be removed. - Bilby (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better now. Just one question, is there any photo to cover the section "Redevelopment: 2002–2003" of the new visitor centre?--Avala (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think it could do with some work, but I'm glad it is heading in the right direction. :) I've added a photo from commons which I believe shows one of the new entrances to the shrine post-redevelopment. That section needs to be expanded a bit, though. I have some good sources, as it was well covered in the media, but I'll have to track down a couple of missing references first. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we've taken care of the referencing problem now: all significant claims should be referenced with reliable sources. I've also rewritten the lead to meet current MoS, and we've restructured the article as a whole. There may well be other problems that need to be fixed as part of this review - just let me know and I'll do what I can. :) It was interesting to see how much requirements for featured articles have changed in the last four years, and it certainly was in desperate need of referencing. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I see only one issue now - quite unimportant image for the article of Keith Murdoch takes too much space while the physical look of the opponent journalist doesn't tell us much about the shrine itself so I would remove it. Other than that it looks fine to me.--Avala (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is in a subsection titled "Oppostion and response". The key figure of the opposition was Murdoch and the key figure of the response was Monash, so I think that pictures of these two main protaganists is apt for this section. Melburnian (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that both figures were certainly important (they get a fair bit of coverage in all the histories I've dug up, much more than any other individuals), I've tried resizing the two photos and putting them together - sort of a "for" and "against" shot. I'm not sure that it helps, but it was worth a try. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a nice solution in terms of juxtaposition and sizing. Melburnian (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that certainly looks very good. Thanks for the effort, I think the article is now deservedly featured.--Avala (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. :) And thanks for raising it here - it certainly needed the work, and I think it is much better for being proposed for review. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no MoS review; post-closing cleanup and comments on talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.