GA Reassessment

[edit]

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

G'day, over all I think this is a pretty good article. I can see a lot of work went into it. However, I am listing this article for an individual good article reassessment in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. My main concern is in regards to the article's referencing standard. There are many places in the article that appear to be unreferenced. I marked these with "citation needed" tags about two weeks ago. (I also think page numbers should be added to the references.) According to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, the presence of "citation needed" tags is a grounds for a quick-fail. That said, I am very keen to see this article kept as a GA, so I will not quick fail the article. Instead, I intend to leave it on hold for the next week or so, to see if this review sparks interested editors who might be able to find the required references. I will then come back next week and make an assessment of the progress. I hope that those who are involved in the article are not disparaged by this. I certainly want to see it kept as a GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@42° South: G'day, not sure if you are still active, but if you are as the article's author, do you still have access to the references that you used putting this together? If so, would it be possible for you to add citations where I've marked them? If you can, I'd be more than happy to reaffirm the article's GA status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]