 | Gerard Krefft was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 15, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gerard Krefft was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 23, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Northern hairy-nosed wombat?
editThe Northern hairy-nosed wombat, Lasiorhinus krefftii, seems to named after someone with the name Krefft, but is it named after this man? --188.177.59.30 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
"Under Construction" and "Galleries"
editUser talk:Sam Sailor and User Talk: Sumanuil . . .
- (1) Due to its complexity -- in relation to the myriad of errors displayed in the 2020s reports (both pro and con) on this man, his works, and his time at the Australian museum, etc. -- the item has required far more work (in relation to contemporary-, rather than modern-references) than I could ever have imagined; and, due to that fact I have, indeed, been laboriously involved in the yet-unfinished article since October last year ( [1], [2], [3], [4]); and, as a consequence I have restored the "Under Construction label".
- (2) In relation to the Galleries. I recognize, understand, and agree with your comments; however, on the basis that many contain information other than simply a photograph of a VIP, I have as an interim measure, restored the Gallery (in order to allow for me to make whatever exclusions or inclusions seem necessary), and ask you to be patient and want to assure you that, provided you leave them alone for the moment, they will not be there in 10 days time. Lindsay658 (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Why didn't you post first? Referring to a discussion you hadn't even started yet in an edit summary just seemed like an attempt at deflection. And all I came here for was that broken file link anyway. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is entirely inappropriate to let {{under construction}} sit for 8+ months, and I have removed it again. Lindsay658, I am sorry that you edit war regarding the galleries. Let me give you one example: John Colenso, you put him in a gallery. Yet he is not mentioned in the entire article. Would you please now cull the article? Sam Sailor 23:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sam . . . You seem to have totally mis-read the situation.
(1) On the basis that I am about 10 days off completing the construction of the entire (currently interim) article — to which, by the way, I have made more than 1,000 incremental additions over the preceding eight months — I am restoring the "under construction" template specifically so that the current un-finished state of the article can not be misunderstood.
(2) There is no "edit war" of any kind. The current, interim state of affairs if that I am slowly removing the "interim" galleries (the "under construction" clearly indicating that they are interim) and need to check, in each case the extent to which the contents, etc., have a need to be placed within the article.
There are many other comments that I could make here in relation to the disturbing nature of your attacks upon my interim work.
However, all that I politely ask is that you delay any further activities for 10 days, by which time I should have been able to add the still-missing material, and have removed all of the (fully-agreed upon by me as) inappropriate galleries.
Also, once I have completed my final adjustments, I will contact you and let you know. Best, Lindsay658 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sam . . . You seem to have totally mis-read the situation.
As at 11 July 2023, I have addressed the issue of the Galleries (retaining only one: that containing illustrations from his two important publications). The final completion of the missing text details will, perhaps, take another week. At which time the "Under Construction" template will be removed.Lindsay658 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerard Krefft/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Lindsay658 (talk · contribs) 01:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting person and an extensive article. However, it does not currently meet several of the GA criteria, and would need significant work to get there. I have to fail the article, but I will leave some instructions below that can be followed to get this article on the way to GA.
1) The article fails GA criterion 2, as there are many sentences without inline citations. One example is this sentence: a fact that explains, in the absence of any coherent account in English of Blandowski's collected material, the value of Krefft's later accounts (1865a and 1865b) of the expedition's discoveries. As this is not sourced, it seems to me that you came to that conclusion yourself based on the previous (sourced) information. If that is correct, it would fall under WP:Synth, something we have to avoid.
2) It fails GA criterion 3 because it goes into unnecessary detail and does not stay focussed on the article. Recently, a respective template was added to the article by another author, so I am not alone with this assessment. An example of the lack of focus is the "Natural History" section. This entire does not seem to be about the person at all, nor does it really provide necessary background information; there are other articles to discuss these matters.
3) The structure of the article is unclear and confusing. For a start, you need some major headings that each have subheadings to get a structure. For example, you have the section "Research" at the end of the article, which is in list style. This kind of section is very non-standard for Wikipedia, I haven't seen that before; this kind of information should be a normal section instead. But more problematically, you have other sections on his research further up – so the problem is the way how the information is organized.
4) Some content is of very questionalbe relevance; for example, is "He is also renowned for having eaten what may well have been the last extant specimens" really a valid entry under "Legacy"?
5) Paragraph-long quotes do not belong in the lead. The lead should summarise the article.
6) In general, the article often does not comply with basic Wikipedia guidelines. For example, we do not provide external weblinks directly in the main text. These should either be references, or placed under "weblinks".
What I would suggest is looking at featured articles on similar persons, such as Charles Darwin, and take that as a model. Pay attention to the writing style, the selection of content, and the structure. You could have the same major headings here, for example. Good luck with the article; I hope to see it again in the future in a much improved form! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)