Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Eureka Stockade/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:44, 19 August 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.
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).
  • there are three cn tags for uncited sentences or paragraphs
  • I am concerned about the use of Carboni, given the amount that has been written about Eureka since 1855, and the analysis of his book (and observations) that has happened in the intervening years. See WP:OLDSOURCES.
  • the same goes for Thomas' 1854 report. It has been analysed and assessed by many writers, surely they are better sources than his original report?
  • Wenban (1965) seems to be a books or resource written for schools?
  • several sources are published by Ballarat Heritage Services. Do they meet the requirements of WP:RS?
  • some of the sources appear to be reprints of earlier works, Anderson,
  • The Defence of the Eureka Stockade". Look and Learn. looks to be unused, and possibly a book or resource written for schools?
  • several sources appear to be memoirs, see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
  • File:Eureka stockade battle.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Doudiet Swearing allegiance to the Southern Cross.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Eureka map.jpg the source is the WWW? Where on the WWW? Link? How do we know it was an exhibit? Also needs a US PD tag
  • File:The Eureka Flag And Eureka Jack.jpg says that "The copyright in individual frames of movies made before 1 January 1955 has now expired under Australian law", however, what this link says is that each frame is protected by copyright as a photograph from the date of publication. For this movie, that is 1949, which means that the frame came out of copyright in 1999. However, to have the current US PD tag, it must have been PD (out of copyright) in Australia on 1 January 1996. So, I don't see how it can be covered by the current US tag. In any case, Ealing Studios was a British company, and British copyright law should probably apply, so rather than adding an Australian tag, it should have a British tag (and a US one).
  • File:Argus Eureka Jack report 4 December 1854.jpg needs an Australian tag, I think the US one will do once an Australian one is added
  • File:Hugh king.jpg is a photograph of a document ostensibly made by King and tendered in evidence at a legal proceeding. I imagine Crown copyright applies here, so that tag should be used.
  • File:Robert Rede.gif needs a US PD tag
  • File:Troops arrive Eureka Rebellion.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Eureka Slaughter.jpg has less specific tags that it could have. I would suggest PD-Australia and PD-Art (with the parameters as shown in that page on Commons)
  • File:Eureka stockade.jpg should have Ireland's years of life appended to her name, she lived from 1879 to 1952, this informs the PD Aust tag. This cannot be transferred to Commons, because, like the one above, it was not PD on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, and also, its origins are uncertain
  • File:Theeurekaflag.jpg needs a tag for the flag itself, not just the photograph
  • File:Eureka Stockade.jpg needs a tag for the plaque itself, not just the photograph
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

A few overall comments:

  • the structure is rather odd and seems almost like a fork of other articles on the same or closely related subjects, repeating much of the material from those articles. The Background section covers too much detail about the lead-up to the battle, this is far better off summarised here and covered in detail in the Eureka Rebellion article (which is pretty detailed). The Background section also covers the battle itself, which is also very odd, given that would be for the main Battle section, not the Background.
  • I have a similar observation about the Fortification of the Eureka lead section. This should just be a simple summary of the Eureka Stockade (fortification) article.
  • In summary, I suggest the article be edited extensively to:
    • make the Background section more brief, covering only key points from the Eureka Rebellion article, and remove all reference to the actual battle
    • introduce the decision to resist with force and build the stockade, an "Establishment of the stockade" section, summarising the Eureka Stockade (fortification) article as part of this, including the defensive advantages and disadvantages of the site and construction chosen
    • cover any comings and goings to and from the stockade and its vicinity prior to the commencement of the battle in terms of defenders and besiegers, ending with a basic explanation of the opposing forces at the time the battle began. A possible section heading might be "Opposing forces"
    • cover the actual battle in as much detail as possible in a "Battle" section
    • cover the immediate aftermath of the battle in an "Aftermath" section, with a brief para at the end covering the longer-term consequences, which of course should be in the overarching Eureka Rebellion article
    • once that is done, rewrite the lead to summarise the rewritten and restructured article

I will go through and make observations/suggestions against the criteria in the table of course, but in its current form, this article is not GA quality, as it clearly does not meet criterion 3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to go through with the images. If you have questions, ping me here and I'll help you work through them in detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to fail this shortly, as I haven't seen any improvement action since I completed the initial check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to do. I would normally only put a review on hold for a week or so, and it has been a month with no editing. I've failed it and encourage you to rewrite it as suggested and fix the image licensing then renominate it. Well done so far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Eureka_Stockade/GA1&oldid=1176369177"