Talk:Townsville/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

I've made an initial run-through of the article, and here are my preliminary thoughts. First off, I should tell you I would not pass it in its current state, but that said, I've listed three problems below that should be fixable.

• Problem 1: Coverage is too vague/skimpy. I've listed these below as examples, but there are many more instances of vagueness and simple lack of coverage:

• the location map in the info box gives the reader no clue where this city is located. You may need a better location map, one that shows the location of Queensland vis a vis the Australian continent, and one that shows the location of Townsville in North Queensland. As it is, the map you have could be a peninsula in Michigan, Scotland, or Newfoundland, and there is absolutely no sense of space or proximity to anything else.
• The section on the new industries and the Japanese migrant labor force needs to be expanded to explain the relationship between the migrant work force and Townsville. You've mentioned new industries here. When did they develop, what was their impact, how big were they?
• Only 2 thing have happened of note in Townsville since 1970? What is this agreement you mention? Why was Townsville chosen for the negotiations? What happened with the cyclone??? Certainly there is more information than a cyclone battered the city?

• Problem 2: Prose. You've got multiple prose problems, and these problems are not simply Australian English versus American or Canadian or Queen's English. The article appears to have been hastily written. Here are some examples

• were the city councils of Townsville and Thurwingowa amalgamated, or were the cities joined, or were the cities joined into the council? As it is written, the cities became the council, which cannot be what you intend to tell us.
• You've also used a lot of ambiguous phrasing and passive voice. Townsville was declared a municipality....by whom? Why? did it reach a certain population? You'll see that I've tweaked your history text some to try for greater clarity. One sentence is entirely deleted -- Townsville was first established in 1864.with ref name="history This sentence had originally been your para's topic sentence, but it was not the topic of the paragraph.
• just plain misphrasing: The Japanese consulate wasn't established to service the Japanese, (what are they, cars?)— it was established to serve them.

• Problem 3: Dropped ideas. Text refers to big ideas, but then doesn't follow through. For example.

• What is white Australia policy? I know you link to it, but so what? What did it do? a short summary in this paragraph would help fill out this section considerably. What was the impact? Maybe a Main link to the white Australia policy article would be useful too, but I think you need more than just two sentences here to explain the relationship specifically of this policy in Townsville.
• Linking between education, geography, location. so much could be done here, and you've dropped the ball. I gather that Townsville is just off the Great Barrier Reef. And.....?
• Is this all that happened there in World War II? What about World War I, what happened to the local units from there?

• Problem 4: POV and focus. JC University is a strong etc.... ummmmmm? do you work there? The University has a strong and internationally recognised expertise in marine & tropical biology How about The University's programs in marine and tropical biology draw on the University's location adjacent to the GBR... or something like that.

These are just a few, a summary, of the issues. I've provided examples, and I hope you'll go through it and see what you can do with the article. Drop me a line on my talk page when I should come back and review it. I'll give it a week before I take another action. Good luck with your improvements! 22:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

failed GA for lack of attention.