Talk:1883 Victorian colonial election

}

'Primary sources' tag
Three of the cited references in this article are obviously secondary sources without further explanation required. In addition to those three: Of the eight cited references in this article, only two of the eight are primary sources. If we take account of the fact that some of the references are cited multiple times, this equates to 12 citations of secondary sources versus two citations of primary sources. In each case, the two citations of primary sources are used to back-up citations from one or more secondary sources. How does this constitute an article that "relies excessively on references to primary sources"? The reviewer appears to have jumped to the erroneous assumption that, if it's from an old newspaper article it must be a primary source. This is not necessarily the case, as this webpage explains. I've deleted this unnecessary tag. Ikeshut2 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * James Service's obituary from the Adelaide Observer provides a detailed evaluation of the subject's life and political career, involving a synthesis of life-events and providing analysis and interpretation. By any definition, a secondary source.
 * On the occasion of Service's retirement from the seat of Castlemaine, the editorial from The Age of 14 January 1886 provides a summary and analysis of Service's recent political career and an evaluation of the previous three years of the coalition government, which he led as Premier. Again, in the context of the citation this is clearly a secondary source.
 * The title of the article from the Kerang Times pretty much sums it up: 'The History of the Coalition Government'. This is a secondary source.