The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [1].

---

Bronwyn Bancroft[edit]

Bronwyn Bancroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Bronwyn Bancroft/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the third in my series of Indigenous Australian cultural figures (the first two were Makinti Napanangka and Steve Dodd). It has been subject to GA review:

• Talk:Bronwyn Bancroft/GA1, thanks to Gbern3, and
• Talk:Bronwyn Bancroft/GA2, thanks to Malleus Fatuorum.

Dablinks were OK as at 16 February. External links: two website appear temporarily down (nga; womenaustralia): both were working 24 hours ago; four links are redirects at the National Library of Australia catalogue for which i cannot get the un-redirected URL, but they click through OK and do not time out. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Confirming that there are no dab links and that two links are currently down. Alt text is present, but perhaps it should be expanded—I suppose it is her art that is on the background of the picture, and describing that is informative to someone who can't see the image. Ucucha 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ucucha. I wasn't sure what to do on that alt text issue. I know that the art works are hers, but per WP being "verifiability, not truth", i wasn't sure whether it should be claimed. I only know of it because of a conversation at the time i took the photo... hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't have to say it is her art there; you can just describe it (concisely, of course). Just as I interpret the image as meaning it's probably her art, someone who can't see the image and reads the alt text will be able to make the same interpretation. Ucucha 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, looks good. Another comment: ref. 22 is cited for the Volkerkunde Museum, but I can't find mention of that museum on the website. Ucucha 05:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They went and updated their webpage, losing a bunch of info. I've found a new (and more reliable) source for that. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was curious about the exact whereabouts of that German museum (which is misspelled, by the way, as the correct German would be "Völkerkundemuseum", but you probably went with what your source said). There are quite some museums of that name in Germany. Ucucha 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief, you are right. Actually it is worse. The (normally very reliable) book from which i got this, when i read its punctuation more carefully, actually has "Volkerkunde Museum, Tokyo"! That can't be right. I'm deleting it from the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do we know if she married or not or where these three children came from? The article is fine for prose, except when I did a copyedit of the second section, I can't think of a synonym for "illustrated" as this word occurs a lot; "drawing/painting" doesn't work unless you know what kind of picture it was... There is some inconsistency in the formatting with yyyy-mm-dd and the spelt out version. With the journals, was the month/date of the issue given? As they usually are for a more-then-once-a-year publication YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources I have located mention marriage or father of children. Thanks for the copyedit. I'll get back to the layout/consistency issues tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Date consistency resolved. I am not accustomed to giving a month of publication where a journal provides an issue number (or is once-a-year) - i've not seen that in referencing, and it would seem to be redundant information. Are there any particular sources where you thought it was needed to accurately identify the source? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No, it's fine the two numbers should be enough, you're right. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• Surely there are better sources than http://www.bronwynbancroft.com/biography/ for her family?

• Unfortunately not. There are several published short biographies of Bancroft, but they mostly cover professional rather than personal information. The only information for which i am relying on this source is the number and names of the children. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was, as usual, wrong. i have found a piece published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in which the artist talks about her family in more detail. i have used that instead. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem with http://www.viscopy.org.au/board - one, I'm not sure this is the best source for some of the information its sourcing and two ... it doesn't mention the specific museums that hold her works, which it is being used to source in the "Major Collections" section.

• Argh - this online bio has been changed! All sorts of information has been stripped out of it. I have switched sources for all of the collections, bar one which i have removed as it isn't mentioned elsewhere. I have also remove one fact re period of service on one organisation. The bio is only being used to support one point now: unfortunately the Museum of Contemporary Art is a long way behind with the publication of its annual reports. As a result, the Viscopy bio is the only source i have for her current MCA artists' board membership. For what it is worth, I phoned the MCA to confirm that fact was correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, this usually means your not satisfied :-). However, i'm not sure what your concerns are. In the first case i'm relying on the artist to tell us the names of her children; in the second case i'm relying on a major national not-for-profit organisation to publish an accurate biography of its board members. What is your concern about here: is it the reliability of the source? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It generally doesn't mean I'm saying they are unreliable, but that I'm not comfortable saying "yes" unless I'm willing to have others use them in the future for who knows what. Generally "leaving it out" means that I don't see this usage as horrid enough to oppose over but it's not reliable enough to strike (which I've found means that many other editors think I've declared the source reliable for everything - this is a problem with gray areas). So on the second one, it's probably okay for what it's sourcing, but I wouldn't want to see it used for a lot. Thus, leaving it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image check: 1 image, from Commons tagged as CC-by-SA with the author (Hamiltonstone) present. Caption looks good. Everything seems in order. --PresN 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: A fine, well-referenced and comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As Hamiltonstone said in the nomination I did the second GA review, so take my support with as much salt as you feel is necessary. I tend to be quite hard in GA reviews, but I felt that this article was close to comprehensive as it's possible to get for an indigenous Australian artist, and it's been improved since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PERSONDATA should be added. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remind me please. Which of the FA criteria demand PERSONDATA? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• None, but I added it anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably for the best, but I think it's time that reviewers were reined in from imposing their personal preferences and prejudices on FAC candidates. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's one of those criteria that seem to veer in and out of being required. Kinda like alt text now, or during the shift to inline cites originally. Doesn't really seem to be used anymore so it's not worth it on my end to ask of it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs.

• Is it really appropriate to include the exact birth dates of her children? Perhaps just the year or month/year.

• I can see the point. Chnged to years only. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• this sentence bothers me: A Bundjalung woman,[5][4] Bancroft has recalled that her father's education was obstructed by discrimination because he was aboriginal. - the first clause seems to have little to do with the rest of the sentence. Perhaps it would be better to move the clause later to describe her father (I assume he must be a Bundjalung man?).

• Cannot assume he was Bundjalung - sources don't state that - but i have altered the piece, as i agree with you that that sentence was poor. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the paragraphs begin "Bancroft..." Perhaps we can vary this a little?

• Done. Only 3/13 now begin with the surname. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any more information about her art style, or its reception?

• I have found two additional items of this sort. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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