# Talk:Richard Minifie

This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Minifie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Performed my usual minor copyedit; really, the only other thing is that I'm not sure the heading Post-military career and later life works as he underwent further military service in WWII, perhaps just Later career or Later life will do the trick, or even Business career and later life. However, I'm happy to pass as is and leave you to consider that - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Regarding the heading, when I put it in place I did consider it may be an issue the fact the he did serve in the Second World War. However, I wanted to pull away from the generic "Later life" heading as, really, he wasn't that old when the First World War, and his service, concluded and the heading implies quite a bit later/older. Also, he didn't really play a major role in the Second World War and the milling business was, basically, his sole post-war career. However, perhaps Post-war career and later life would be a slight improvement? Thanks, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the Australian Dictionary of Biography cited, but not listed in Reference section. Could it be added, editors, ISBN, and all?
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not need to be listed in the "Reference" section as there is a properly formatted cite to the online version. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a very recent change to Wikipedia policy concerning books accessed via the internet. You might want to check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT#Say_where_you_found_the_material
Georgejdorner (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely what Bryce is doing, he read the online edition, so those are the details that should be giving.  David Underdown (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
David's reply sums this up perfectly. I found this material online, not in a book which I have never seen. Also, this is rather different than if I had, say, read material from Google Books. In that case I would list the source in the "References" section as I had seen the book, just it was online. The cited version of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, however, is rather different as one is not viewing an online copy of the book(s), just an entry on the website. This is precisely why Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography exists. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)