Talk:Gwion Gwion rock paintings/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 09:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"In the last 35 years" -> change to something like "1980 onwards..." "History" does not include anything about their creation. So shouldn't be labelled "Discovery and study" or similar There are instances where Bradshaw art/paintings are italicized; at other places, not. Can you please standardize.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Dating: It is unclear why "Climate" needs to be discussed. The "Research" relates to the relevant climate parts.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Thylacoleo carnifex cave art.jpg will be copyrighted by Antiquity Journal/Kim Akerman & Tim Willing, since it is drawn by them Except that, all other images are good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Suggestions per 1a completed and 6a image is deleted. Wayne (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wayne, Dating: Remove the reference styles (Watchman 1997: 42) for reference consistency; you can include the same in the footnotes

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Wayne (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re Climate section. The overall climate since the LGM is relevant for who made the images because of much of Australia being uninhabitable for long periods, the reduction in population and existence of refuges. The Research section only covers the climate in regards to the end of the tradition. I agree it is unclear atm as it needs a better image to supplement the text for the general public. I'm currently doing an image in photoshop to cover this. I'm hoping the image will work to avoid the section being unnecessary detail. Wayne (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wayne, It is not the image, but the content. Research explicitly relates the climate part with the art: "The discontinuity in artistic styles between the earlier Bradshaws and the current Wandjina has been attributed to a severe drought phase..." There is no such connection in the "Climate" section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to get back on this. I will incorporate the climate section with research and cut the length down substantially while adding how it is tied to research. Some researchers hold that there were several waves of immigrants during the late ice age, one arriving via New Guinea while the people who painted the Bradshaws arrived via the Kimberlys. The existence of the refuges and climate dating is used to "support" that they may not have been the ancestors of Aborigines. Because this is a controversial view it needs to be written carefully. Wayne (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wayne, any updates on this? Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing note: Because the nominator has been inactive in a month, I'll close the review as failed. It has been opened for nearly three months, which was more than enough time to fix the notes.--Retrohead (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)