Template:Did you know nominations/Centre Party (New South Wales)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Centre Party (New South Wales)

 * ... that the Centre Party, active in New South Wales during the 1930s, evolved from Australia's first fascist movement?
 * Reviewed: Battle of Constantinople (1147)
 * Comment: Sources for hook are in the "Analysis" section. (Just to be clear, the relevant quotes are "the New Guard 'unequivocally stamped itself as a fascist organization, the first such movement in Australia to achieve this distinction'" and "[the party] represent[ed] 'the culmination of the New Guard’s ideological evolution'").

Created by IgnorantArmies (talk). Self nominated at 14:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC).


 * review underway. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This is a well-written, well-researched article which must come very close to Good Article standard, and I hope that its author will submit it for that review process.
 * For DYK purposes, it is:
 * New (created 4 July 2014)
 * Long enough: 9287 B (1462 words) "readable prose size"
 * Within policy: neutrally-written, references sources with copious in-line citations.
 * Free from copyvio or close paraphrasing of the online sources. Given the care with which those sources have been used, there is no reason to hesitate from an AGF that the dominant offline-sources have been used with similar rigour
 * The two images used are both PD
 * QPQ satisfied (see Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Constantinople (1147))
 * In reviewing the articles I found two few very minor stylist glitches which I corrected, two rather long paragraphs which I split , and one instance of a reference being placed at the end of sentence when the source supported all but the non-critical last clause (I moved the ref).
 * I suspect that a Good Article Review might suggest that some of the sentences are too long (like those I write!), but this is not WP:GAN. The prose is elegant and precise, and far exceeds DYK expectations.
 * My one concern is with the hook. It interesting, well within length, and meets formatting guidelines. However, the bold statement it makes — that New Guard was fascist — fails to reflect the nuances of either the Centre Party (New South Wales) article or the New Guard article. The hook fact is indeed directly referenced in the article (footnote 10, second usage) ... but that source is countered by the next sentence, where James Saleam is cited as asserting that there was "no organised Australian fascism" in that period.
 * In short, the hook falls short of the scholarly rigour which shines through the article.
 * I think that this could be resolved by a slight qualification of the hook to something along the lines of "evolved from New Guard, claimed to be Australia's first fascist movement?", or "evolved from Australia's first movement with overtly fascist tendencies?" (Both my suggestions feel clunky, but I hope that they convey the sort of qualification I have in mind).
 * Please could the nominator respond to this suggestion, and to notify me?
 * Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive feedback and copy edits, . I had considered qualifying the hook a little bit, but I'd figured that I'd go for maximum hook-yness – and that it would probably slip by the reviewer :) I think the best way to do it is


 * ALT1: "…that the Centre Party, active in New South Wales during the 1930s, evolved from what has been called Australia's first fascist movement?",
 * which reflects the scholarship a teensy bit better (and is still under the character count). Thanks again,  IgnorantArmies  14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IgnorantArmies. I know that temptation to maximise the hookiness, and if the article itself was any less scholarly I might have let it pass. But it seems a bit of a pity to associate such a rigorous article with a journalistic headline-writer's desire for boldness.
 * As I expected, your rewrite of the hook is much better than mine. That resolves my only outstanding concern. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT1 above is good to go. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)