Talk:Pearl Corkhill

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pearl Corkhill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pearl Corkhill has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 5, 2009	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
November 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 30, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sister Pearl Corkhill* was one of only seven Australian military nurses to win the Military Medal in the First World War?*
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 4, 2017.
Current status: Good article

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pearl Corkhill is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Military history: Biography / South Pacific / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War I task force

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pearl Corkhill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have read through this article, checking references, images, prose, MOS and all other criteria. I can find no issues that would prevent promotion to GA status. I have made a few minor changes, mainly minor copyedits and wikilinking. As I have no further comments with regards to the criteria, I am promoting this article to GA status.

One minor comment: Alt text, either its presence or its correctness, is not required for GA status. However, just as a note, you may want to take a further look at WP:ALT before writing more alt text for A-class or FAC (where it is respectively requested and required). Alt texts need to be verifiable by anyone looking at the photo, and should not include proper names. They should also describe what the photo is showing - for example, the alt text for the photo of the Corkhill sisters should be something like "Two young girls in white dresses sit, each holding a cat. In the background is a wooden fence." The whole alt text thing is just a suggestion, however, as it really has nothing to do with GA status!

Overall, this is a great article. Very nice work! Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. Dana boomer (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic