# Talk:Enlighten Canberra

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enlighten Canberra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems the intro is a bit crowded with sources. Sources are not needed in the intro, unless to support controversial information or such. The intro is just a summary of the article, and should not have unique info or sources.
Your list of references is massive, it should be divided into more columns. See most other articles for examples.
"The beginnings of Enlighten could" You could use the full name at first mention outside the intro.
Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article.
"could be said to be" Seems a bit informal, could it be reworded?
"Canberra Festival.[20][21] The merging of the festivals was met with criticism from the Canberra Liberals" Links for any of these?
You need to mention that Canberra is in Australia both in the intro and article, even though it might seem obvious.
"Films screenings" Film screenings?
"Night Noodle Markets" Explain what this is.
Mention more notable bands that have played in following years perhaps?
Under Environmental impact you state pretty matter in factly how much energy was used, but you don't mention any actual "environmental impacts", or any other context. Any commentary/criticism of it that could be added?
I'm not sure what the image caption in the infobox "Enlighten encourages people to "See Canberra in a whole new light"[1]" has to do with the image. Seems like a motto or something, and should be moved to the article body somehow.
I see you also state that in the intro, but there should be no info there not also in the article body.
"despite poor weather" Only mentioned in the intro.
"Since its inception, Enlighten has become increasingly popular, attracting 115,000 visitors in 2013 and 131,500 in 2014, despite poor weather. Attendance rose again in 2015, to 287,874 visitors." This entire summary could be included outside the intro as well.
Are the same buildings illuminated each year? The article body doesnø't make this clear.
Any technical specs on how the illumination occurs? Seems like a pretty important omission, since the festival is named after this feature, but the lighting itself almost seems to be mentioned as a sidenote.
Elaborate on why lights are so important here, and if possible, how the idea was conceived.
That should be all, Clare., please comment here when you fix each issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, firstly thank you for all your comments and work reviewing this article. It's great to have some feedback and really handy to be able to work through in a list form. I believe I've addressed all of the above, with the exception of technical specs - I unfortunately cannot find these, which might mean this cannot be a good article for a while... I will keep looking and hopefully will be able to turn something up eventually.
Once again, thank you! Clare. (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Changes look good, I don't see anything on response to energy consumption, though? Couldn't find anything? And it is ok you couldn't find anything on specs, GAs don't have to be as comprehensive as FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll assume nothing could be found and pass this, since I haven't gotten a response in quite some days. But could be something to look into. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)