# Talk:Cape Moreton Light

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cape Moreton Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Drawings were made in September 1854, just between the two colonial architects, as Blacket was succeeded by William Weaver only on 1 October 1854. This reads rather clumsily, can you rephrase it?  Done
Otherwise prose is fine, I made a number of minor copyedits.[1]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
references check out and appear to be reliable, no OR found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
broad and focussed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Sufficient detail and focus.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No evidence of edit warring.
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): 
images are licensed and captioned appropriately
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just one minor point of clarification on the prose. on hold for seven days for this to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your quick response. I am happy to list this now. Congratulations Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I clarified the text, but let me share a small dilemma and get your thoughts. If you look at the drawings, File:Cape Moreton Lighthouse, 1854.jpg, you will see that they are not signed by the architect as customary, but by Alexander Beazeley, Foreman of Works in the Colonial Architect's office. I was wondering why, and then I realized the timing would put the signing in a period of vacancy. The "historical truth" here would be to write "and drawings for the tower were completed during that vacancy period, in September 1854, and signed by Alexander Beazeley, Foreman of Works in the Colonial Architect's office". But I can't find a source for that, other than the simple fact that he is the signatory. So is this OR, Or can File:Cape Moreton Lighthouse, 1854.jpg be used as the source for that? --Muhandes (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I think that could cite that to the document itself with its url at the national archives. I would omit the "during that vacancy period" as that would be OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Muhandes (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that ticks the box, well done. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cape Moreton Light. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706121209/http://www.amsa.gov.au/drawingregister/drawings/ans/AN342-01.pdf to http://www.amsa.gov.au/drawingregister/drawings/ans/AN342-01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)