Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/Requests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia | Assessment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shumway (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 29 June 2022 (→Current requests for assessment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Instructions

  1. Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
  2. Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
  3. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
  4. Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.

Example 

===={{la|article}}====
Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~


Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

Current requests for assessment

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

June 2022

Stub has been expanded, would appreciate a reassessment for quality. Thank you. Shumway (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

I have expanded this stub article by 2000 words for a university assignment. Would appreciate it if it could be reviewed. Thank you. JejuToSyd (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)JejuToSyd (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded this stub article for a university assignment. Would appreciate it if it could be reviewed. Thank you. Trees92 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am expanding this stub article by 2000 words and a photograph for a university assignment. Would be greatly appreciated if it could be reviewed or any feedback. Thank you. Hoau4476 (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still showing as Start class as it hasn't been re-reviewed since inception; by now must be B or higher. Aspirex (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Don't believe this article is still rated C-class.DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hi! I've listed this article for assessment because it concerns an important subject in Australian politics, but not sure if it's presented in the most verifiable or noteworthy way. Any and all feedback welcome. Thanks! Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Draft article for assessment. I would recommend the article has a mid to high level of importance given the number of Australian awards the book has won. I'm currently working on a Plot section but further feedback would also be great though as I'm a newbie at this. SallyRenee (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've expanded this article quite substantially over the past month and was hoping for any feedback possible and to have the article status assessed. Thanks. Trees2299 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Trees2299[reply]

November 2021

Should be rated more than low importance as it was the first railway in both Australia and the Southern Hemisphere. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with Port Melbourne line above, this should be rated more than low importance as it was the company who operated the first railway in both Australia and the Southern Hemisphere. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

The AUKUS article needs an assessment for importance and a general assessment. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

I expanded this article in the past few days after seeing it is a stub and a vital article. I would appreciate an assessment against b-class criteria and any comments you have because I might try to get this to GA. The article also needs an assessment for importance. OakMapping (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Army article has been over the past year expanded, and this request is to ensure that this article is not a start-class anymore. IronBattalion (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this appears to have been dealt with per: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

I don't think this necessitates a large upgrade, but I would like a second set of eyes on this article to give their thoughts, as I think it is now beyond stub-class. Cheers! --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have upgraded this to Start class as I agree it has progressed beyond a stub. Thank you for your work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello! I have improved this article by adding over 2000 words, media, an infobox and references for my university assignment It would be very helpful if this article could be re-assessed and I welcome all feedback for improvement. There is also a banner at the top of the article from 2012 requesting a need for additional citations, and I was hoping this could be reviewed. I have since added over 30 new references to the article to improve verifiability and credibility. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had many significant improvements including over 5 new sections covering much more information. It is no longer a start class article. Thank you in advance. mui3772 (talk) 05:45, 07 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your efforts, but as a BLP I am not comfortable rating it higher than a start at this stage as there are quite a few places that still need references. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

This article has been drastically improved requires reassessment (2000 words, with lots of data), and is no longer a stub. Please have a look, Cheers —Eddometer (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has assessed this as B class. Thanks for your efforts. If you are still interested in working on the article, I would suggest tidying up the citations per the example edits I have provided in the article's history. Good luck with your studies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have improved this article by adding over 3000 words for my university course. I added the sections of Family Tree, Family Origins, Sources of Wealth, Divestment of Assets and Philanthropy. I would appreciate any feedback and would love to have the article status assessed. Thank you! Dovederecho (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have assessed this as Start class. Thank you for your efforts so far. If you wish to work on it further, I would suggest moving the family tree to later in the article. Additionally, the lead should summarise the whole article (so it needs to be expanded) and book sources need page numbers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have improved this article by adding roughly 2000 words for my university assignment. It would be very helpful if this article could be re-assessed and provide some feedback. Thank you very much. Ansome5 (talk)

@Ansome5: G'day, thank you for your efforts so far. I have assessed this as Start class; I think some of the information is opinion and needs to be attributed a bit more clearly in the text as such rather than being presented in Wikipedia's voice. It also probably needs a bit more of a critical view. Good luck with your studies and I encourage you to stick around after your course is over and keep working on this and any other articles that might interest you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have made several changes and added much more information to this stub article and would appreciate a re-assessment of it! Thank you.JerryH7 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this appears to have been assessed by another editor as C class. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have dramatically improved the Space Demons stub article (added 3000 words). It would be fantastic if you could assess it. It now has multiple new sections including a thorough character, plot, critical reception and lead section. Clarkkent1234 (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this article has been assessed as B class by another editor. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have improved this stub by around 2000 words as part of a university course. It would be very helpful to have some feedback and have the stub assessed. Thanks for the ongoing time and effort. JellyfishSammy (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have assessed this as Start class as there are issues with depth of coverage in my opinion and use of quotes that need to be resolved before it could be assessed as C or B class. Good luck with your studies and thank you for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am currently working on my university assignment and have edited the stub article of the native legume in Australia. Although photographs of the species is still missing, I have added as much contents as I could. May I Kindly ask for an article assessment? That would be so helpful of you. Thank you.--What7IWrote (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have assessed the article as C class; for B class I would like to see an expanded lead that summarises the whole article; thanks for your efforts so far, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedians. I have expanded this article by 2000 words. This article is currently rated a stub class and I have made several improvements. I have added the sections of Geography, Hydrology, Major cities around Brown Lake, Aquatic Fauna, Flora, Natural History, Environmental Threats, and Ecosystem Management. I have also added to the Lead Section, as well as the pre-existing Aboriginal Significance section. Accordingly, I would like to request a review of this article. Thank you. SnoMurWal (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. The Lakes project has assessed it as C class and has provided some feedback points on the talk page. I have deferred to their judgement and rated as C class for the Australia project for the timebeing, but it appears very close to B class, IMO. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have recently expanded this article by 2000+ words for a university assessment this semester. The article is currently stub rated, however, since expansion, has developed significantly from its initial stub page. As a result, a review of the article status and stub itself would be greatly appreciated. Thank you BeaClaire (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. Another editor has assessed this as start class. All the best with your studies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have recently expanded the article by 1000+ words for a university assessment, part of which involves having the article be assessed by other editors on wikipedia. My final edit will be by 30th May and will bring the article to roughly 2000 words. A review of the article status would be greatly appreciated. FergusH2000 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Fergus, this appears to have been assessed as C class by another editor, which seems a fair assessment, IMO. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have been working hard to expand this article for a university assessment for this semester. The article is stub rated and now it is added around 2000 words, including Description, Distribution, Habitat, Ecology, Putative hybridisation, Similar species, Conservation status, Cultivation, Population information, Decline and Threats, and Activities to protect Dodonaea procumbens. So I would appreciate a review as I believe the article should be upgraded from the stub. Thank you for your assistance. Camorange (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this appears to have been assessed as C class by another editor and I agree with that rating. For B class, all paragraphs would need to end in a citation as a bare minimum, IMO. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have significantly expanded this article for a university assessment. I would really like to have this article reassessed and appreciate any feedback for improvement. Thank you! Wiki66644 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, assessed as B class following the addition of the remaining citations. Thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd love to have this low-importance stub to be assessed. Around 3000+ words have been contributed about the small suburb, including Indigenous history, colonial history, and more recent histories of the local area. Could one stellar editor volunteer their time to generously rate the new additions to this stub/article? HSIEteacher (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, HSIEteacher, thank you for your efforts with this article. I have updated it to Start class, although it is very close to B class, IMO. There are a few clarification tags that would need to be addressed to achieve that rating; additionally, each paragraph would need to end in a citation. It would probably be C class, IMO if you just rectified the clarification tags. Again, thanks for your efforts. Good luck with your studies and teaching. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs assessment. New article. Needs to be reviewed, added 2000+ words Hunterrr8809(talk) 4:18 19 May UTC

G'day, nice work Hunterr809. I believe that this would be very close to B class, but probably needs an expanded lead that summarises the full article per MOS:LEAD. Assessed as C class in the meantime. All the best with your studies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Needs assessment. New article. Has been reviewed but no assessment given AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 02:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this appears to have been assessed as start class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this article doesn't look look to be stub class Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Serprinss:, I have upgraded this to C Class. Well done on the good work on the article. Deus et lex (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus et lex:, to clarify i did not make any improvements to the article i just noticed it looked to be under assessed. sorry for the confusion. Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 08:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Serprinss:, no worries - thanks for bringing to the attention of the Assessment project anyway. Deus et lex (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have expanded the article from a stub size significantly, I think it is now a C class. Forbesy 777 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this already appears to have been assessed as C class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I have expanded on this stub after collecting information for the past four months and believe that it is no longer a stub and has possibly reached a C-class article status. I would highly appreciate it if someone were able to assess the article. Thank you so much! --Cyph3r223 (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, fascinating topic -- my father's side of the family actually came to South Australia from Cornwall (St Austell) to work in these mines, so this piqued my interest. Assessed as C class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created this original stub after collecting information over the past two months. Thanks in advance for a review! Annnnnnna2020 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have assessed it as Start-class for the timebeing; for a higher assessment I would recommend expanding the lead, adding more citations where the cn tags have been added and ensuring that all opinions are attributed in text. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have expanded this article over the past few months and the article has reached a C-class article status. Assessment against the b-class article criteria would be highly appreciated. Thank you! Umbrella.Won (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Umbrella.Won: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. At this stage, I think that it is close to B class, but not quite there yet, IMO. For B class, I would ask that the books that are cited have page numbers added and that the notes also have citations (an example of how to add citations to notes can be found here, if you need). Additionally, I would request that the external links that are being used in the body be replaced with internal wikilinks (if the subject is notable), used as a citation (where appropriate), or just removed per the guidance at Wikipedia:External links. I also think some aspects of the lead and infobox should be covered in the body (revenue for instance, but overall everything mentioned in the lead should be in the body in some way, shape or form, IMO). Anyway, good luck with taking the article further. Hope you are having a safe and festive Christmas/New Year. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a significant amount of new information to this report, far more than some B and C rated articles of similar topics (plant-related). Therefore i would greatly appreciate a review! Thank you in advance.

G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have updated the assessment to C class. For B class I believe refs are needed in the spots I have marked with cn tags. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been working hard on expand the Australian Financial Services Licence article for a university project for the last semster. The article is stub rated and nothing has been reivewed, so I would appreciate a review as I believe the article should be uprgaded from a stub! Thank you for your assitance [[User:Wikisonhon7|Wikisonhon7]] (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Wikisonhon7, thanks for your work on this article. I have updated the assessment to C class; for a B class rating, I feel it would need a few more citations (where I have added the cn tags). New that your uni assignment is done, I hope you will stay on Wikipedia and work on other topics, but if choose not to, thank you for your time here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been working hard to expand the Koori article for a few months now, and would appreciate a review! Thank you in advance Bella2129 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been assessed as C class by another editor with this edit: [2]. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a substantial amount of relevant information regarding this topic and I am confident in the article being higher than a stub. A review would be greatly appreciated! --Trinity4729 (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thank you for your work so far. I have assessed the article as Start class. For a higher rating I would ask that each paragraph end in a citation and that opinions be fully attributed in text. Good luck with taking the article further. Hope you have a safe and happy Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a considerable amount to this article and believe it is now higher than a stub. I would greatly appreciate a review. Thank you! --Lydiahoughton (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on this article. I have assessed it as B class. The article has substantial coverage of his life, is well sourced and only needs expansion and fixing for some areas (e.g. there's nothing about his death). Great work. Deus et lex (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an assessment of this stub after significant contribution. Thanks in advance! ZWT01 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your efforts with this. I have assessed it as C-class; there are still a few places that need citations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly changed and I believe it to be a higher class than a stub. If someone could conduct a reassessment that would be great. Thanks. -- WikiMagpye (talk) 9 December 2020

G'day, thank you for your efforts. I have assessed it as Start class for the timebeing. If you could add citations where I have placed the "citation needed" tags and page numbers for the book sources, I believe it would be C class. For B class, I think it would probably need something on the building itself as the Architecture project seems to have an interest in the article (based on the project tag on the talk page). Have a safe an happy Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made significant edits and contributed media to this article and believe its quality is higher than a stub. Platonist Rainbow (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, I have updated the assessment now. Probably just needs a couple more citations (I have marked the spots with cn tags) to make it a B-class article, IMO. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with taking the article through GAN! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After writing and improving upon this initial stub article, it has been rated as a C-class, which I very much appreciate from the reviewers on this WikiProject. I would greatly appreciate for a re-assessment in hopes that my article could be rated a B-class or even higher. I understand that I am a new editor and the article is not perfect, but a re-assessment would be very much appreciated. Thank you! --Lawrys16 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thank you for your efforts with this article. Strangely enough I spent a few summers in my childhood at this dam (even though I grew up in small country town in SE Queensland), so thanks for the memories! Anyway, for the timebeing I think that C class is probably appropriate. The are issues with the prose (tense for instance and run on sentences) that should be addressed (I have made a start for you) and a few spots that need citations before the article can be assessed as B class, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate an assessment of this article following extensive writing and research. It is currently a stub. Thank you --Chrissgour1 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissgour1, thank you for your considerable efforts to improve this article. I have assessed it as B Class. The article is well researched and sourced, some of the areas are very comprehensive and while others could do with a bit more expansion (e.g. the section on the recognition of Cypriots in Australia could be a little more specific and less generic) it is overall very good. Deus et lex (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate reassessment of this stub which has been rewritten. Thank you. Humusamirs (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have assessed the article as C class for the timebeing; a couple of spots still need referencing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you very much for this! Thanks for the note about the references, I've since updated the gaps. Have a good one! Humusamirs (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a reassessment of this article (currently stub class) following an extensive rewrite. Warrenjs1 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have assessed it as C class; it is close to B class, IMO, but some of the information in the infobox does not appear to be in the body, or uncited. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to this article and would appreciate a revised assessment. Thank you! B0x3rg1r1 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article, this is significantly better than a stub class which is it currently rated at. I think C class is appropriate. It is close to B-class, but I think requires a bit of tidying up before it could be rated that way (e.g. some of the citations don't conform to the MOS, the "notable people" section could be expanded to read about perhaps some notable Australians who returned to Israel rather than just have a list, and there are some facts in the infobox and lead sections (e.g. the 10,000 Australians living in Israel) that should be cited somewhere in the article as well. Great work! Deus et lex (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled this page and added a fair amount of information to this stub article, and I would like to have it removed from the stub tag and possibly reclassified. Thank you! --Meady3000 (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessed as C class; nice work work. Could possibly be B class if all aspects mentioned in the infobox were mentioned in the body of the article, and cited. Thanks for your efforts. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Been filling out this page with some info, I'd like to have it reviewed to at least remove the stub tag and potentially classify it as C class. Theboys775 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for your work so far. I have removed the tags and upgraded the assessment. For me, it probably needs refs in a few more spots (where I've marked) for C class. If you want to take it to B class and beyond, I'd recommend adding a discussion of the historical aspects of the topic. If possible, I'd request that you look at the citations again. The use of nowiki tags is causing the urls to merge across the columns when I view them, making the refs difficult to read. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these things up, would that be enough for C class? Historical aspects are proving more difficult to find, I'll keep at it but one step at a time. Thanks, Theboys775 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have updated the assessment now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

I'd like an assessment to see if this page meets B class, or needs more work and should stay at C class. Significant edits have been made as much nostalgia for this event has meant more sources and references are available. --Lama12 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Lama, thanks for your efforts with this article. You've definitely improved it significantly, IMO; however, there are still large amounts of uncited text, which gives me pause in rating it B class. I think C class is the correct assessment at this stage. Thanks for the nostalgia, by the way. I remember staying up to watch it and being almost too tired to get up to play cricket on Saturday. That was my first season of first grade as a 16 year old; pretty sure I dropped a sitter at first slip in the first over and my captain might have opined that I should have stayed in bed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Article was started in 2006 with a Stub rating. I've spent the afternoon fixing the article with the known problems, and would like a review to see it can be reclassified as start. Lama12 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have upgraded the rating to start class now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Article was started in 2018 with a Stub rating. Article has been greatly expanded in past month. Believe it should be a C at least. Forbesy 777 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have assessed this as C class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps! Forbesy 777 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Article was rated start class in 2008, and has been greatly expanded with lots of reputable sources. I think it should be a B at least. Newystats (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Start class seems appropriate to me. There are quite a few citation needed tags, which should be rectified for B class. Also, I'd suggest expanding the lead. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to me to be well written, well sourced with reputable sources and well balanced. Currently rated C class, I think it should be classified B class at least. Ljgua124 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljgua124: G'day, I hope you are well. Thanks for your interest in this article. C class seems appropriate to me for the moment. For B class, the citation needed tag should be dealt with, IMO. Also, I couldn't see where some of the figures were cited (for instance in the infobox figures of 10 and 52 for the numbers of people involved and 40 as the upper range of people killed). Is it possible for you to add a ref for these figures? If possible, it would be best to work these into the bod of the article, but at a minimum if they aren't mentioned in the body they should be cited in the infobox. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded and seen increased importance since it's release a couple weeks ago. Currently rated start-class and low importance. Requesting re-assessment of both quality and importance, in reflection of the changes and the notoriety of the app. Bravetheif (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been assessed as B class and mid-importance by another editor with this edit: [3]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been considerably expanded since the beginning of the year including the addition of an infobox, an updated map, headings and subheadings with several paragraphs, and references along with the removal of outdated information. Was rated stub-class prior to changes. Requesting a re-assessment of quality. Big thanks SlinkySeahorse (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)SlinkySeahorse[reply]

G'day, thanks for your efforts -- I have assessed the article as C class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Article has had significant expansion and re-style. Currently rated start-class and low importance. Request re-assessment of both quality and importance, given it is the oldest church in Australia's capital, and is directly linked from the Canberra page. Happypup398 (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Happypup, I hope you are well. thanks for your work on this article. I have upgraded it to C class and mid-importance. To be honest, I don't know much about importance ratings, so I will defer to yourself if you think it should be higher. Regarding, the assessment, I feel it is pretty close to B class, but as there appear to be some paragraphs that aren't fully cited, I have erred on the side of caution with a C-class rating. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day AustralianRupert, thanks for the review. Mid-importance seems appropriate, considering there are very few Canberra articles higher than that. I have imported a bit more historical and contemporary content from the materials I currently have access too (coronavirus is stopping me from going to a library to get more) and added references for paragraphs that were not fully cited (they were relying on references in other paragraphs). Happypup398 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work (interestingly enough, I attended a wedding at St John's many years ago when I was at Duntroon). I have marked a couple of extra spots that I think you will need refs for a B class rating. Beyond this, though, I think you'd have a good chance at GAN, although I caveat this that I don't usually work on these sorts of articles so I may have missed something. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Hopefully things will improve soon and you will be able to get some more books from the library. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Article has had significant expansion and research. Last rated Start class. Bravetheif (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, nice work. I have assessed as C class. There are a few places that still need citations (which I have marked). Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

This topic is of great importance to Aboriginal Tasmanians, and notable within Tasmania with an increase in dual named locations. I request a review of the article importance from Low to at least Mid. ReverendPete (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RevPLaw: G'day, the importance scale characterises mid-importance as the "[s]ubject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area", so it probably meets that requirement. I didn't realise how controversial the topic was, though, until I had a look at the article's talk page. Frankly, I have no wish to get involved. If you wish, though, I have no objections to you or someone else updating the importance scale. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Last assessed as C Class, hopefully it is a bit better now after significant expansion and overhaul. Vision Insider (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vision Insider: G'day, overall it looks quite good to me, although I am a lay person when it comes to politics articles so please take my comments with a grain of salt. However, C class appears an appropriate assessment given that quite a few paragraphs appear not to be cited. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Cheers. Where would you put additional citations? Convention is generally that a paragraph can be broken up for reading ease - as has happened in the Conflict between the Houses section. It could all be in one paragraph with no breaks and nothing much would change, since they all use the same source. It was broken up to assist with reading ease. Where would you consider citations to be lacking? Does that mean putting a footnote at the end of absolutely every paragraph, even if 2 to three successive paragraphs use the same source? Does it mean searching for a wider variety of sources so that successive paragraphs don't use the same source? Vision Insider (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, yes, the end of of each paragraph would be my suggestion. If you use the same source for multiple paragraphs, I would suggest using a WP:NAMEDREF and repeating the citation as that will make it clear where the information has come from. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Righto, that's been cleared up. All of the stuff that's not controversial or supremely obvious is now cited and up-to-date, I reckon. Still a C? Vision Insider (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the assessment now. Nice work, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

This article was last assessed in 2011 as Start Class. Since then, there has been significant expansion. In the last week, myself and a few others did a significant overhaul, cleanup and expansion. A couple of sections still need expansion and references. Would like a review. Revoran (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Revoran: as you say it has been expanded & better than start class. It's a big jump from C to B however. Let me know if you would like some detailed feedback on where I think the article could be improved towards meeting the B-Class criteria. Find bruce (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

It's now been a while since the article launched, would like a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, nice work so far. There are still quite a few paragraphs that are unreferenced, though, and I suspect that more could be said about the design and construction (for instance the field dimensions are not mentioned in the body of the article, but are mentioned in the infobox) so I think it is currently correctly assessed as start class. It is very close to C class, though. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a major rewrite from its initial bare bones and discussion of other railway lines over the past since Feb 2017 and includes an extremely large train route table and purpose built links to interactive maps and hopefully all external references cited now. A review would be useful please Skillsy (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, definitely getting there. There are still quite a few paragraphs or other areas that lack citations. There are a few maintenance tags that should be addressed, and some of the prose could do with a copy edit, so I would say it is a solid Start class article (very close to C class). Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

This article has been expanded from a stub to a fully fledged article. Nestek (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been updated to start class: [4]. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2018

This article has been expanded, and seems likely to be stable. A good time for a re-assessment to move it from stub class. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to start class as the coverage and referencing probably aren't there yet for B class. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when the initial review occurred. I have been steadily improving this page for over 9 years. The page gets a steady flow of views and edits by other contributors. Links to public transport services, relevant government programs and policies have been kept up to date. Dead links are frequently removed. Ridership stats form the census have been added. I note that Cycling in Melbourne, a very similar page, has been rated a C class. Teraplane (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been upgraded to C class now: [5]. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

I have put a bit of time into expanding this article a little bit. I'm not sure if it still counts as a stub. It clearly still needs more work but is more than just a definition now. Mrpalermo (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been upgraded to start class: [6]. Overall, looks quite tidy to me. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2017

Article has changed significantly since previous review (a 350 word stub). Starts to place his importance within Australian poetry, which has been neglected for over fifty years. Please review the class. Thank you, Q8682 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed as C class, articled is very detailed and well referenced. Teraplane (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has changed significantly since previous review. Could be a lot bigger and better, but I suggest that it should no longer be rated as 'Start-Class' or 'Low-importance'. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BenAveling: G'day, sorry for the belated response: I can see that a lot of work has been put in to this, but as it has both citation needed and empty section tags (e.g. the Governance section), start class is probably correct, IMO. If something could be added to that section it would probably be C class, IMO. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Over the last few months I believe this article has been improved a lot. Is it really only a C rating? Superegz (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see that a lot of hard work has been put into this, there are still a few paragraphs that don't end in citations (and also a few maintenance tags), so I would say that C class is probably still an appropriate rating. I note that it had an unsuccessful GAN in 2018 -- in this case, I would suggest that a peer review might help push it further along. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

This may fall under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football, however their page doesn't exactly have a section for these entries. I created this page in October of 2016 and it has not been given a Quality or Importance (presumed 'Low') review, so I kindly request this. Many thanks ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, tidy little article. I've assess as Start class, but it would be close to C class, IMO, if the table and the last sentence of the first paragraph in the History section could be referenced. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

I just noticed that the subject is rated Low-importance; however the subject is highly notable within its field (note the Festschrift) so should probably receive a Mid-importance rating or possibly higher. Please review. Thanks! yoyo (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed as C class, expanded references, but still some missing citations. Hard to gauge importance compared to all Australian academics, could you quote a citation index or some other measure of notability? Teraplane (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Over the last few months I have added additional verification (some 30 references) and extra details which I believe have the article at a quality higher than Start. Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given it has been two months since I posted my request and the article is yet to be reassessed, can someone inform me as to whether this is still an active WikiProject. If not would I be better placing my request on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television page? Thanks, Forbesy 777 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Forbesy 777: G'day, sorry for the belated response. I can't comment on whether the Australia project is active as I am only a part time contributor over here, but regarding the article it appears to be accurately assessed as Start class at this stage, IMO. The maintenance tags need to be addressed and referencing improved for B class. Regardless, though, I can see a lot of work has been put into the article so far, so thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

the page brotherband has gone through significant changes over the last year and is quite comprehensive.

Reassessed. Comprehensive enough for "C" class but needs more references. The in-character section is also too long -- Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

I think significant changes have been made to the above-mentioned article to improve its rating from C-Class to B-Class. Karyasuman (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessed as C class as there are a few uncited sentences. Otherwise, the article seems to be coming along well. Thanks for your efforts. Sorry for the belated response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

My local suburb, I've been doing quite a bit to it. I've added a lot of references and more information. It's current rated Start-Class, I think it's due to bump it up? Let me know if changes need to be done, I'm happy to do more work if I know what's missing! :-) MarkehMe (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkehMe: Sorry for the belated reply. I think Start class is an accurate assessment at the moment, but it would be very close to C-class. There are a few unreferenced areas, and I would suggest expanding the lead a little. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment/Requests&oldid=1095620753"