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" Astrokey4405:13, 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. --nixie05:21, 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? Astrokey4408:37, 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. --nixie09:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
