Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Atlas of Australian Birds/1

Atlas of Australian Birds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted It appears that there are outstabnding problems with this article. The prose is poor, some strange word choices ("atlassers"), there is apparently dated material (Ongoing developments), there is little or no coverage of the book(s) themselves, some coverage of Birds Australia would be useful, the article is sourced only to primary sources. The absence of an infobox is not a consideration for GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

1b. I think it likely that there would be a relevant infobox - perhaps the infobox for websites. The layout may require an extra early section explaining the project holistically followed by sections on the two books and the database. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2b. Quite a lot of specific information (and therefore likely to be challenged) is not sourced. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3b. It seems to me that there is a relevant information that is not in the article. Examples probably include lack of information about: Birdata, WildlifeLink program, the huge collaborative nature of the project. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:The New Atlas of Australian Birds.jpg is used as a thumbnail but has no caption.~~ 6a. It claims Fair Use and so should include who the copyright holder is (likely the publisher). I disagree that the presence/absence of an infobox is a GA criteria, but relevant to 1b I think the "Ongoing developments" section violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references (The Atlas is now in its ongoing phase and is now accepting...) -maclean (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.