Contents

Talk:Aboriginal Memorial

	Aboriginal 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 reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 30, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
	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?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Canberra / Northern Territory / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance Aboriginal Memorial is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the Northern Territory Library. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Sculpture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Australia Day#"Invasion Day"|Invasion Day]] The anchor (#"Invasion Day") has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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]

• 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

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]

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]