Talk:Arthur Upfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleArthur Upfield was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 16, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Assessment completed for Arthur Upfield[edit]


As per either a recent request at or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: article contributes a depth of important knowledge

However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question.

ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the "Requesting an assessment section", and someone will take a look at it.--VS talk 10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 121.91.219.122 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) please www.arthurupfield.com - upfield's official publishing site to your links 121.91.219.122 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Arthur Upfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 16, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Although this is a short article the Lead' should be a summary of the whole article, which it is not currently. Obviously the list of works does not need summarizing, but there should be mention of his life, military service, etc also the TV series. The Works section needs reorganising - I would suggest a section on Reception /Criticism is needed ; you have the basis in the first part of Works. There is no need for the German titles - perhaps this article was translated from the German wiki? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a crack at this, can you please give it a look and let me know if it's of an appropriate length and style? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC). Yes that is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I fixed a number of broken links. Forums such as ref #13 [1] are not RS and need to be replaced. There are a number of citation needed tags dating back to January 2008. There are a large number of unsupported statements such as Keating & Priestley's comments. I think there needs to be a citation for the allegation of book piracy in the US editions.
  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:

OK, on hold for seven days for the above issues to be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC) OK, there are still outstanding citation needed tags, so I will de-list. The article can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death date[edit]

According to this document, Upfield died on Wednesday 12 February, which date is also supported by this google news archive from The Age. ABD also gives 12 February. The "Official Site" gives 13 February. Is the thesis document a reliable source or is ABD good enough by itself?  florrie  16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has any thoughts on this?  florrie  23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austlit - The Australian Literature Resource - also gives 12 February as the date of Upfield's death. So the evidence seems to be stacked against the "official site". I'd write to them and ask if they have any other references. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of the gravestone/plaque would be nice :)  florrie  09:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Upfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur Upfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Upfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Upfield&oldid=1206239496"