Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Australia.
This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia articles.
Ratings are performed using the {{WP Australia}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Australia articles by quality and Category:Australia articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
|
|
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Australia}} project banner on its talk page:
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wiki: Content assessment for assessment criteria):
FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Australia articles) | FA | |
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Australia articles) | A | |
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Australia articles) | GA | |
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Australia articles) | B | |
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Australia articles) | C | |
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Australia articles) | Start | |
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Australia articles) | Stub | |
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Australia articles) | FL | |
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Australia articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Australia}} project banner on its talk page:
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wiki: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Australia articles) | Top | |
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Australia articles) | High | |
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Australia articles) | Mid | |
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Australia articles) | Low | |
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Australia articles) | NA | |
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Australia articles) | ??? |
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
FA | The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
| Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion] | Australia |
FL | The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria:
| Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. | List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients |
A | The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wiki: Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | Australian light destroyer project |
GA | The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is:
| Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Julia Gillard |
B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
| Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Sydney Opera House |
C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow. | Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | Arts in Australia |
Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
| Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Tourism in Australia |
Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Mount View, New South Wales |
List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | Outline of Australia |
Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. | Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. | Category:Australia |
Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | Australia (disambiguation) |
File | Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. | The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. | Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. | File:Flag of Australia.svg |
Portal | Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. | Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. | Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. | Portal Australia |
Project | All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. | Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. | Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. | Wiki: WikiProject Australia |
Redirect | Any redirect falls under this class. | The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. | Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. | Commonwealth of Australia |
Template | Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. | Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. | Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:Australia topics |
The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia.
Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.
Importance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Kindergarten |
High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Factory Acts |
Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | 0.999... |
Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | G cell |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | Category:Palms |
??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. |
Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team
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
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. |
Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.
Can someone review Eureka Prizes and provide some advice on how I raise its importance. Whilst this is one of Australia's premier science and technology awards, the Australian Museum does not archive this information anymore - they only keep the past 2 or 3 years. Elliot Duff (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Did a rewrite of this page to try get it up to scratch and remove uncited information. Would love any feedback!
Have done quite a bit of work to get this up to wiki standards.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
As above, but still a work in progress.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Would like reassessment after recent edits, cleaning up, and updating of data. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I have rewritten three articles related to VCE and added numerous sources, would appreciate a reassessment of the article
I have expanded the whole article from a stub to a detailed article describing the whole application process
Added infobox, created mock exam front cover, restructured and expanded some parts of the article.
Also expanded from stub to article, adding format and score calculations
Thats all, thanks! Purin128AL (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Old article however I have completely rebuilt and expanded the article and it needs reassessment. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Stub has been expanded, would appreciate a reassessment for quality. Thank you. Shumway (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Don't believe this article is still rated C-class.DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
The AUKUS article needs an assessment for importance and a general assessment. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Needs assessment. New article. Needs to be reviewed, added 2000+ words Hunterrr8809(talk) 4:18 19 May UTC
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)
this article doesn't look look to be stub class Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Requesting an assessment of this stub after significant contribution. Thanks in advance! ZWT01 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
Would appreciate reassessment of this stub which has been rewritten. Thank you. Humusamirs (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Requesting a reassessment of this article (currently stub class) following an extensive rewrite. Warrenjs1 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I have added to this article and would appreciate a revised assessment. Thank you! B0x3rg1r1 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Article has had significant expansion and research. Last rated Start class. Bravetheif (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
It's now been a while since the article launched, would like a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
This article has been expanded from a stub to a fully fledged article. Nestek (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This may fall under the scope of Wiki: 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)
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)
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)
the page brotherband has gone through significant changes over the last year and is quite comprehensive.
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)
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)
To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.
Quality
Importance
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Assessment, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.