Wikipedia:Peer review/Indigenous Australians/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:33, 20 November 2005

Indigenous Australians

comprehensive article, with links off to plenty of articles on sections, it seems to qualify for most of the criteria on "What is a featured article" Astrokey44 05:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While Adam and other have done a great job rewriting and reorganizing this article, it has no references (a requirement for an FA), and there are numerous summary sections with no content- like culture and Tasmanian aborigines. The lead is also too short and should be expanded to 2 - 3 paragraphs that summarise the article. I think it'd be a good idead to do away with the promient people section to and where possible work those names into the text. --nixie 05:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could some of the existing links be turned into references? I've added to the summary sections that had previously no content, it looks a little better now. It probably is a good idea to put the prominent people into the article, although then where would you put the link to the Prominent indigenous Australians article? Astrokey44 08:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're the existing links used as references? I know its a pain, but things like population (historic and current), social and health disadvantage and the details on dating arrival should really have specific references so readers can verify the information for themselves. If you could also list some books that verify the articles content that would help too. The solen generation/assimilation is given pretty short shrift in the text, and the section where I'd expect it called "Adaptation" seems inappropriately named. To be really picky indigenious Australians weren't just hunters/gathers, the Torres Strait Islanders practiced subsistance agriculture and several other groups farmed various things. Prominent or notable people are normally a concern since there may be bias in the way they are selected, slip as many names into the text as possible and include the list in the see also section. --nixie 09:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by this article.-gadfium 08:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also impressed by this article, but have several concerns:

Keith Windschuttle - he may or may not be obnoxious, but I feel he should be mentioned. Not necessarily to give him credibility (shoot him down for all I care) but to maintain NPOV (see Black arm band theory of history)
References. We need them.
The study of Aboriginal culture has changed over the years. I can find information on this issue (I saw a very good book just the other day in the state library).
Nothing on Aboriginal deaths in custody.
Not much on the current state of Aboriginals today. For instance, there are parts of Australia that are worse than 3rd-world countries. This is really not mentioned. Nothing on the high suicide rates either.
Nothing on Redfern riots.
Nothing on how they are treated in Western Australia (see for instance Select Committee on Reserves (Reserve 43131) Bill 2003 or this article.

Much more to go I fear. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :I'm also impressed by this article, but have several concerns:
-:*[[Keith Windschuttle]] - he may or may not be obnoxious, but I feel he should be mentioned. Not necessarily to give him credibility (shoot him down for all I care) but to maintain NPOV.
+:*[[Keith Windschuttle]] - he may or may not be obnoxious, but I feel he should be mentioned. Not necessarily to give him credibility (shoot him down for all I care) but to maintain NPOV (see [[Black arm band theory of history]])
 :*References. We need them.
 :*The study of Aboriginal culture has changed over the years. I can find information on this issue (I saw a very good book just the other day in the state library).