Jump to content

Talk:Ged Kearney/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hello, I'll be reviewing this article using the table below. This will be my first GA review, so bear with me. Feel free to ask any questions below. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your comments so far- I am italicising the ones I have completed. GraziePrego (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Replying here as replying within the table doesn't format properly) I see what you mean about the relevance of the fish accosting Kearney on election day- it is an unusual and interesting detail though? It does also show a bit how focused the campaigning was on the environment. Still very happy to go with your judgement on it though, it is hardly the most vital point to understanding Kearney.
    The other stuff about campaign divisions- "Divisions within the Greens' campaign assisted Kearney. During the by-election campaign, an internal complaint of bullying by Bhathal was leaked to the media, and members of the Greens' Darebin branch requested her expulsion from the party following Bhathal's support for Lidia Thorpe in the 2017 Northcote state by-election." I agree with moving to the by-election article. GraziePrego (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my mind also- The Fish can move to the by-election article :) GraziePrego (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that decision. It is definitely a lot more relevant to the scope of the by-election article. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GraziePrego: The article now meets the GA criteria, terrific work. Congratulations to you and as well to everyone else who contributed to the article. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

In relation to this revision:

  • FN41: The authors name is written twice, also has the words "medical editor" which is causing an error.
  • FN22: The citation contains multiple authors all in one parameter. Please enumerate the first and last parameter for each author. (eg: |last2= and |first2=).
  • FN44: Same as above.
  • FN29: SBS News seems to have wired their article from Australian Associated Press (AAP). For this reference, change the parameters so: |work=Australian Associated Press and |agency=SBS News.
  • A few citations I have seen do not mention the author name (FN9 & FN10) I suggest going through at all the references without author names and seeing if an authors name can be added to the citation (particularly ABC News sources) and also looking for wire services as mentioned in the above bulletin and adding that into the citation.

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also–

  • FN50: Replace health.gov.au with Department of Health and Aged Care as the publisher.
  • FN38 – Statement on new Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery – doesn't seem to be verifying anything in the article.

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE: this revision– I have notice a few more citations with health.gov.au that should be replaced with 'Department of Health and Aged Care' as the publisher. (FNs 42, 43 & 48) ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where a citation's |website= or |publisher= is a URL (eg: www.abc.net.au or parlinfo.aph.gov.au) replace it with the actual website name– ie: ABC News or Parliament of Australia (if possible). Also for future reference, where the website or publisher of a source has a wikipedia article, wikilink it within the parameter– eg. |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]]. The same applies when an author of a source has a wikipedia article– you can use the |author-link= parameter to add the authors wikipedia page (eg: |author-link=Chris Bowen). ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: this revision– FN2 needs to be fixed, it has "Australian Parliament House" as the author's last name for which there is no author. To fix this remove the |author= and |author-link= parameters, change the title to |title=Kearney, the Hon. Gerardine (Ged) Mary, change the website parameter to |website=Parliamentary Handbook - Parliamentary Library, and add– |publisher=Department of Parliamentary Services and |via=[[Parliament of Australia]]. I also see a similar problem with FN22, FN38, & FN39. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN14 (this revision) needs to be reworked. It says the website is Ministerial Press Release when it is Parliament of Australia, and the title shouldn't have parlinfo -. To save you time, I suggest when citing your sources to insert the info manually and not use the autofill as it often produces errors, particularly when you intend to submit the article for GAR. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.

As far as I can tell, the following info has not been properly verified:

  • Early life & infobox: The article says Kearney was born in Richmond, Melbourne whereas the source says Ged grew up in... Richmond.
  • Infobox:
    • Add a source verifying the date Kearney was sworn into her ministerial portfolio.
    • Add a source verifying the date Cooper replaced Batman.
    • Add a source verifying ACTU departure date of 2 February 2018.
    • Add a source verifying Kearney's date of birth. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the career section, the phrase – receiving the support of around 70% of the unions in the ACTU – appears to be backed up by a primary source. Please see if a secondary source can be found to verify this fact or state in the article something like: "at the time, Kearney claimed...". ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • This passage – On the day of the by-election, an environmental protester dressed as a fish accosted Kearney and Shorten at a polling booth. – doesn't seem to be relevant either. Further, a lot of the drama there regarding the Green's internal fighting is probably more appropriate to be moved to the 2018 Batman by-election article. Again, if you disagree, don't hesitate to let me know. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • After a quick skim I have found the following, if you disagree, don't hesitate to let me know:
    • In the union movement section, this passage – In June 2012, during Fiji's transition to democracy, Kearney attended an International Labour Organization conference in Switzerland, where she witnessed a representative of the Fijian military regime attempt to intimidate a Fijian unionist by filming him speaking, against the rules of the conference. – doesn't seem to be relevant to the biography, if there isn't a way for the occurrence to be better tied into the article then it probably best to removed it.
    • Same as above for this passage in the Batman by-election section: The Australian Conservation Foundation distributed material stating that only the Greens would "stop Adani's mine from going ahead". (Please disregard, I changed my mind)
I will keep this, and 2c, on hold for now in case I find anything else that needs addressing in my detailed prose review (which I will most likely complete by the end of tomorrow AEDT).

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall assessment.

The article, in my view, now meets the GA criteria. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ged_Kearney/GA1&oldid=1188992950"