Talk:Aboriginal Memorial

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Tea with toast in topic GA Review
Good articleAboriginal Memorial has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 7, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Aboriginal Memorial contains 200 coffins, but not a single dead person?

Source notes edit

For reference:

  • There is no entry on the Memorial in Horton's Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia
  • There is no entry on the Memorial in McCulloch's New Encyclopaedia of Australian Art

- hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sources not yet used in article edit

  • Mundine John (1988) “Aboriginal Art: 200 Burial Poles - an Aboriginal Memorial,” Art Monthly Australia, May 1988 Issue No.10, reprinted in Under the Southern Cross Bicentenary Biennale of Sydney, catalogue entry
  • Mundine Djon (2000) "The Native Born, Objects and Representations from Ramingining", Museum of Contemporary Art, ISBN 1 875632 44 1
  • Mundine Djon (1999) "Le Memorial un chef-d'oeuvre d'art aborigene; The Memorial a masterpiece of aboriginal art, Art Exhibitions Australia, National Gallery of Australia, and the Olympic Museum Lausanne, ISBN 92-9160-038-5
  • Mundine Djon (2010) "Marking the test of time: Nick Waterlow and the Aboriginal Memorial", Art & Australia Vol47/4 Winter 2010 ISSN 0004-301X
  • Mundine Djon (2011) "Elizabeth Djuttara Malibirr 1942-2010", Art & Australia, Vol48/4 Winter 2011 ISSN 0004-301X

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: --Tea with toast (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

From my brief overview, things look to be in order. I'll take some time to make sure that everything is correct. --Tea with toast (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Review edit

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Good job! --Tea with toast (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply