Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Garran/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) [1].

Robert Garran

Notified: Stephen Bain, Australia noticeboard, WP Bio, WP Politics, WP Law, talk page notice 2020-02-10

This is a 2007 promotion whose original nominator is hardly active any more. I noticed the talk page over two months ago, but nothing has happened. There is quite a bit of uncited text, a MOS review is needed (I noticed WP:PUNC, MOS:CAPTIONS and WP:DASH, MOS:ALLCAPS), and there are incomplete citations (missing publisher, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help tidy up this article. I think I have fixed the issues with ALLCAPS, en dash and tidied up the citations - I didn't see any without a publisher, but let me know if there are any I have missed. I'm new to this process & so not sure what is meant by the disambiguation link to MOS#Captions - I presume it is meant to be MOS:CAPTIONS, but I am still not clear on what needs to be fixed - I noticed the first image had no alt text which I have fixed. I've still to go through the uncited text, including the large use of his memoirs and punctuation issues. --Find bruce (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out, Find bruce. I am quite busy for the next few days, but will catch up with what you have done so far and give you more feedback later in the week (hopefully someone else will get to this sooner). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

There is a 2007 Spoken wikipedia in the External links; is it still remotely accurate, and should it be moved to talk?
Why is the Canberra University link in External links? It adds nothing; presumably that University has its own article.
This article is enormously sourced to self; it is hard to see how it can retain FA status without a significant sourcing upgrade.
Off-topic ... "The art deco building is ... "
Tons of uncited, including direct quotes and entire paragraph in Retirement, and entire paragraph in Public service.

Find bruce this article needs significant citation work, and too much is cited to Garran himself. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed feedback SandyGeorgia both here and in the article. I will work through those & see what else I can do to bring it up to current standards. --Find bruce (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Find bruce, can you give us an update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest Nikkimaria. I have been able to clear most of the citation needed points helpfully added by SandyGeorgia, but that is just a start as there are still substantial parts that are either unsourced or cited to Garran. My access to sources is restricted to online ATM - it looks like I will be able to see what books I can access to in the next week or 2 so should be able to make better progress. I will need more feedback on meeting the SA standards - is 2 weeks an appropriate _target to get the article to a position where I am ready for that feedback? --Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a fair bit of progress. There is one sentence that failed verification and may need to be re-written. I am still trying to find 3 citations that are noted. While there are still some self sources, these appear to me to be consistent with WP:SELFSOURCE, being either about Garran or identified as direct quotes by Garran about other people. The exception is one identified as better source needed which concerns Garran's work on the Debt Conversion Agreement. While there are sources as to his involvement, if I can't find a source for the extent of his involvement, I will need to rephrase. I am unsure of the position regarding the 2007 spoken wikipedia - the article has been stable since 2007, with the exception of the work I have now done through this review. Now would be a good time to give me feedback on what additional work is required. --Find bruce (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look in tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has multiple harv ref errors, and mixed citation style. I don't do Harv Refs; someone else needs to pitch in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a harv ref pointing to Irving 2006, but no Irving 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parker for example is in references, but nothing points at it, because all of Parker was moved in. What is the citation style? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia I have deleted Parker as a separate source as there is no page number to refer to, hence no need for shortened footnotes. Irving 2006 should have been 2001. Correcting these 2 has removed the hidden category "Harv and Sfn no-_target errors". I thought I was using Citation Style 1, but didn't realise Citation was CS2 so I have changed those to Cite Book or Cite Web, so should be all CS1. --Find bruce (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Whitlams and Zines are also returning Harv ref errors ... more tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And some of the citations are pointing at his publication list ... I do not use Harv refs and do not know how to fix all of this, but ‘tis a mess :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy - I'm trying hard not to be obtuse, but I am not seeing the Harv ref errors. I am happy to do the work to fix them, if you help me with your expertise on what needs to be fixed. Is there somewhere specific I should be looking? For the ones you have identified, I think I will be able to sort those out

Zines is a 12 page pdf, so I will go through each reference to source it to a specific page.
The Whiltams are a bigger problem - for me to fix that is - as it seems I have not used them as a reference. I will either use them or delete them.
The publication list is currently formatted as references. I will change that to be a list of title & year with a reference at the end which should clear up any errors associated with that.

Thanks again for your help. --Find bruce (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when I should look in again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SandyGeorgia, I believe I have fixed the errors you have referred to. There remains 2 citations needed, but to do so I need to get access to a physical copy of Garran's book Prosper the Commonwealth (I am not aware of any source online) & that is proving problematic. --Find bruce (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, given Find bruce's subsequent edits, do you still feel FARC is appropriate? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:, FARC not needed, and I am good to close it now ... the one remaining cite to self is not all that controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.