Talk:Darwin rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDarwin rebellion was a 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 8, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that following the Darwin Rebellion of December 1918, HMAS Encounter was sent to Darwin to protect Administrator John Gilruth and his family?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 17, 2008, December 17, 2009, December 17, 2011, December 17, 2014, December 17, 2018, December 17, 2021, and December 17, 2022.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Typo?[edit]

In the section "Rebellion", there is the passage "Eventually, the crowd dispersed, but not before they carried Gilruth's effigy to the front gate of Government House, socked it in kerosene and set it alight." Is "socked" a mistake for "soaked"? Or is this an Australianism? -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a typo. Thanks for picking it up and I'll make the change. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darwin Rebellion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have not made a close reading of the prose yet, but there are major issues relating to referencing, and lesser issues relating to images, which need to be cleared up first.

Excellent, thanks for your feedback. I'll start working on the changes over the next 3 or 4 days. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be ready for your GA review. Once again, thanks for your feedback and critique. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Ref [9] is to the ADB entry for John Anderson Gilruth. The whole "Dr John A Gilruth" section in the article is quoted verbatim from this source. This is not acceptable. Short verbatim quotes from sources, in quotation marks, are OK, but not lengthy extracts without quote marks. The section should be redrafted, any phrases that you wish to incorporate from the ADB entry being signified by quote marks.
I'll redraft in the next couple of days.Spy007au (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the section. Should be all OK now. Spy007au (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to ref [12], I suspect (from the prose style) that there may be more verbatim material in the article. I can't check this, as don't have the book, but can I ask you to look at this, reword as necessary and/or put direct quotations into quote marks.
I need to borry the book from the library again, which I'll do in the next 24/48 hours. But from memory there are no direct quotes. I only used (not copied) critical information needed to write the article.Spy007au (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Spy007au (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [2] does not work  Fixed
  • Ref [4] doesn't support what's in the article  Fixed
  • Ref [15] is another wikipedia article and cannot be used as a source  Fixed
  • What evidence is there that [16] is a reliable source? It cites no sources for the statements that it makes, and reads like a junior school essay. Fixed I have added an additional reliable source to support the statement.
    • But you also should remove the dodgy "school essay" source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
  • Ref [17] is of questionable relevance to the article, since it deals with the present-day situation, not that of 1919.  Fixed
  • Ref [29] is a personal blog. I'm not sure what information in the article it is being cited in support of, but I would doubt its credentials as a relable source. Fixed

Images[edit]

  • The fact that your images are PD in Australia doe not per se make them PD in the US, which is what counts as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This needs to be checked with one of Wikipedia's image experts.
    • PS I've checked with the images oracle, and these are all OK - PD for wikipedia purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following images are all in breach of WP:IUP#Displayed image size. What this means is that you must remove the "250px" or whatever, reducing the images to their thumbnail size (I'll do the first one):-
John_Gilruth_1.jpg  Done
Chinese_Labourers_1.jpg  Done
Vestey's_Meatworks_5.jpg  Done
Victoria_Hotel_2.jpg  Done
Darwin_Rebellion_4.jpg  Done
      • The lead image is not covered by the thumbnail rule, so that can be restored to 280px - I've done this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Harold Nelson image needs to be left-aligned, to avoid him facing out of the text. Done

When you have responded on these, I will carry out a full prose review. The GA nom is on hold for seven days. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

I have spent some considerable time going through the prose. I am sorry to say that at present its standard falls well below that required for a good article. I will give some examples – do not take this as a complete list, but as an indication of the kind of problems which tend to run through the article.

  • In the Background section the first sentence needs to clarify that until 1911 Northern Territory residents were treated as citizens of South Australia. What you say in the second sentence appears entirely covered by the first. Fixed
  • Gilruth section: You need to go back to the ADB source and check your chronology, altering the first paragraph of the text accordingly. Fixed
  • 1913 strike section: Some terms need explaining, e.g. "wharf lumpers". You also use the term "unionists" - does his mean trade union members? "Unionists" usually means something entirely different. What is the difference, in this section, between unionists and strikers? Also, you don’t "present terms of surrender". You may request terms. Fixed
  • In the later sections I noted some highly POV terms, like labourers "taking advantage of the situation" and requesting "outrageous wages". Also, "A conspiracy was uncovered..." Incidentally I think you should refer to "workers" rather than labourers, since this word indicates a particular type of heavy manual worker. Fixed
  • Aside from the multiple prose issues, some parts of the article are seriously under-referenced. For example, the long second paragraph of the Nationalisation of hotels section needs more than the two citations you have given. Fixed Also, I note that there are 13 references to Frank Alcorta’s book. These need to be separated into pages or short page ranges – you can’t expect people to search through 115 pages of text looking for each reference.

So, finally, I have to say that the article cannot pass GA at present. Against the GA criteria it fails on prose, referencing, and (marginally) on neutrality. It passes on comprehensiveness, stability and images. There is no reason why, with more work and particular attention to the points raised in this review, it should not develop into a good article., but please take some time before renominating. I don't mind looking at it again when you think it is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your time, effort, feedback and critique. I'll work on the article as my spare time allows and will contact you again when I believe its ready. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another look[edit]

I've had another look at the article. While doing so I carried out some copyedits, and also did some delinking. You have a tendency to link straightforward English words, sometimes via the wiktionary. This is unnecessary, except for very unusual words that sometimes find their way into articles, and I can see no instances of that here.

I have not had time to read the article as carefully as I would have liked. In general it has improved since I saw it at GAN a couple of months ago, but there are still numerous weaknesses that you should atend to. Here are the ones I have picked out:-

  • Lead: The term "Australian trade workers union" is odd. "Trade workers union"? - never heard that term used. You should specify, as you do further down, the trade union in which the unrest occurred. Fixed
  • Background. The first two sentences are confusing - they seem to be saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
  • 1913 strike You say: "With the threat of Chinese competition removed..." I don't think "removed" is the right word; the White Australia policy restricted immigration, but didn't as far as I know, get rid of the Chinese who were already there. So think "reduced" is a better word. Fixed
  • Vestey meatworks
    • You contradict yourself when you say, first, "Vestey Bros had proposed setting up a meat plant..." and, later, "Vestey Bros finally consented to building a meatworks."
    • You talk about the effect of the meatworks closure, but from the article I gather that the closure was in 1920, which is beyond the date of the rebellion. Fixed
  • Palmerston District Council
    • "men of all classes united in pursuit of a common aim" is a quote and must be cited.
    • Your statement that Gilruth should have taken notice of the growing discontent is written as your opinion, and should be reworded.
    • "take over the hotels" should be expanded. Darwin hotels? Northern Territory hotels? Fixed
  • Nationalisation of hotels
    • I have put "citation required" tags against two unreferenced statements.
    • "penalties were steep" - penalties for what? Also, "steep" is informal language.
    • You mention "some sdverse side-effects", without saying what these might be.
    • Your statement that "the mistake that helped finish Gilruth's career in the Territory was trivial" is editorial opinion, and should be cited or reworded.
  • Rebellion: "another meeting was held in January 1919". A meeting of who? and where?
  • Aftermath
    • To describe the press reaction as "predictable" is, again, expressing your opinion
    • This is a right muddle: "...blaming a Soviet establishment in Darwin to Russian aliens, to total anarchy, to an uncaring Federal government and Gilruth himself". This sentence needs serious reconstruction.

If you can deal with all of the above, it might be worth having another shot at GA. If I were you, before doing this I would get someone new to read it, with a fresh viewpoint. Good luck, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Darwin Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Darwin Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Darwin Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Darwin rebellion. 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) 03:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darwin_rebellion&oldid=1199437790"