Contents

Talk:Walter Liberty Vernon

	Walter Liberty Vernon was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

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

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Australia: New South Wales Low‑importance Walter Liberty Vernon 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Architecture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The review has been placed on hold as these need fixing:

• The lead needs to adequately summarize the content of the article.
• I don't feel the article has enough content. Have you done a thorough Google search or visited a library to see if more could be added.
• The gallery section needs an introduction.
• Can any info be added on the individual buildings in the National Estate section, such as when they were built and when they were added to the Register? The list could then possibly be made into a table.

Let me know once these are fixed or if you have any queries. Epbr123 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been on hold for five weeks, and is due for a re-review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written: Fail the article has no introduction, two moderate sized sections, and a long bullet-point list, which are not near thorough enough or organized well enough even for a B-class article. Its sections are also too short, most of the paragraphs need to be either expanded or merged into other paragraphs.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Fail The article only had three sources.
3. It is broad in its coverage. Fail There is little information about the first 30 years of the person's life, and only a moderate amount about the last twenty.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass what little information there is seems to be neutral.
5. It is stable. Fail the lists and redlinks are extensive and disruptive to the Article's format.
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. Fail Though there is a gallery of apparent works made by the person, they are not at all sufficent to discuss the subject. Images and templates about the person himself should be added, and these images need to be moved from the gallery and dispursed throughout the page.
7. Overall: Frankly, the article is not even good for a B-class article in its current state. It needs a huge amount of work before it can be nominated again. -Ed! (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]