Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Australian Capital Territory/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:13, 5 June 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified:
 * Top 5 users in edit count: PDH, Martyman, YellowMonkey, Chrisfromcanberra, CJLL Wright;
 * WikiProjects: Australia, Canberra, Australian history, Politics

I am submitting the above featured article (orginally promoted in 2005) for review as I believe it falls short of the current featured article criteria. Specifically, I am concerned about the following potential deficiencies:


 * Criteria 1B: Comprehensiveness
 * Article seems largely comprehensive; however it has no information past about 2003. Did nothing notable happen in the ACT since 2003?


 * Criteria 1C: Well-researched
 * Large number of tags, some added by me in places I thought appropriate to add citations, but in other locations in place since 2008. 47 total citation tags in the article.
 * Also, 5 of the 12 general references, along with several of the websites, are apparently published by the Australian government (Australian Government Publishing Service or Australian Bureau of Statistics). Does this possibly create a WP:NPOV issue? Concur that this specific concern is addressed; however User:Fifelfoo does raise good concerns regarding overall coverage and article scope below. –Grondemar 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Criteria 2C: Consistent citations
 * Citations are not consistent in the general references.
 * Additionally, three general references are written by "Fitzgerald"; however, the detailed (referred to on the article as the cited) references list page numbers against "Fitzgerald", making it impossible to determine which of the three books is being cited. Concur this is addressed, User:YellowMonkey moved two of the three Fitzgerald references to a "Further Reading" section, eliminating the ambiguity. –Grondemar 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Criteria 3: Images
 * All images are tagged as freely licensed. However, when I initially reviewed the article they all lacked alt text.  I took a stab at providing the alt text, but would appreciate an independent review of my efforts to ensure I did it right.

Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing particularly notable since 2003, no. This shouldn't be terribly surprising in an article covering a period of more than a century. And - seriously, claiming that the use of government sources in a history article is an NPOV issue? Now I've seriously heard it all. The citations need fixing nonetheless, however. Rebecca (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The books I used that were printed by AGPS had the disclaimer that although the govt paid and commissioned the works for the 1988 bicentenary of Australia, the folks were free to do what they want and the books don't represent govt policy. They were by uni academics or PhD thesis adaptations, so I don't think they would have wanted to stuff up their career by disguising a govt mouthpiece. Also the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should be fine, like the BBC, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics is just the census, which hasn't been accused of rigging stats. Luckily Australia doesn't have govt propaganda in teh news, and the ABC is usually govt-sceptic; govts (Labor or Liberal) often denounce them.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't realize the nature of the AGPS publications. I struck that concern above.  Thanks. –Grondemar 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For comprehensiveness, the 20 yr anniv news feature I added mentions the civil unions law that got overruled by the federal govt and some school funding cuts. It may be similar to the feds overturning Euthanasia in 1995 in the Northern Territory. I don't follow LGBT stuff at all, so am waiting for someone who does to say something, because lots of AWNB people do pay attention to that stuff.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to add anything past 2003, those two issues are probably the two things I'd choose. The euthanasia comparison is apt on civil unions, and the school closures (and accompanying cuts to practically every other government service) was a genuinely massive local issue. Rebecca (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Contradiction? The 20 yr anniv piece says Labor had 4 seats in 1989 and a majority in 2001 and 2004. Antony Green's ABC election site, also cited, says they had 5 in 1989 and a majority of 9 in only 2004  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strangely, they're both wrong. Labor had six seats in 1989; it was the Liberals who won four. Green is right on the majority question though; the 2004-2008 term is the only term of the ACT parliament to ever have had majority government. 2001-2004 was a minority with the Democrats and independents. Rebecca (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where's Bilby?  YellowMonkey ' ( bananabucket '')  06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion between User:Fifelfoo and User:Rebecca regarding comprehensiveness, article content moved to talk per User:YellowMonkey. Fifelfoo's concerns remain open. –Grondemar 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The text on both maps is ridiculously tiny. Can the text be boosted? The captions are not well written. The pic of the Senators needs to be larger, as does the naming of Canberra and others: perhaps 240px? Tony   (talk)  11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I enlarged the non-map pictures to 240px, and the maps to 480px so the text was readable. Let me know if this is too big. I also rewrote some of the image captions; please review. –Grondemar 05:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Naming of city of canberra capital hill 1913.jpg: no licensing concerns but no source is given. I agree that there are no other image concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've dug up some sources which should help with the comprehensiveness issues. In the meantime, though, I'm starting work on the boring stuff: I'll try and get the references in a consistent format, per above. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved down, since it's stalled. I'd like to think I'm not being corrupt and doing jobs for the boys  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - the new semester's been limiting my time, but I'll be continuing work on referencing. I'm feeling ok about this one, given time. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Switched the harvard for you. Good ol Find and Replace  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, comprehensiveness, images  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How is work progressing on this? Do the working editors feel that enough progress has been made for reviews and keep/delist declarations to start? Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bilby has always saved every FA he signed up for: Shrine of Remembrance, Waterfall Gully, South Australia, Dietrich v The Queen, Cane toad, so I don't think waiting a bit more will go astray.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Work seems to have stalled for the past couple of weeks, so I'm just checking in again. It would be great if Bilby could post here with an update on where he feels the article to be. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've finished with the reading - today I'll be able to clean up the missing references, now that research is out of the way. There should be some nice progress by tomorrow. - Bilby (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - an emergency bit of coding kept me busy. I've freed up tomorrow, though - I would like to see most of this done by the end of the week. Things tend to go quickly once I've got the research phase done. - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything that was marked as unreferenced, or which I identified as needing one, has been referenced. There's a couple of areas where it probably should be expanded a tad, and I'll see what I can do to fix them over the next day or two. - Bilby (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were going to expand it massively with all those books you dug up. Did you read a lot for not much gain? :(  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still doing that. First problem is to make sure that there are sources for everything, as sourcing someone else's stuff is so much harder than writing your own. Three major areas of concern are the establishment of the location, the relationships with the indigenous population, and the law stuff. Location I'll make a shot at tonight, relying mostly on Birtles as the best academic source I could find. Indigenous population issues are a tad harder due to some discrepancies between works: hard to know if they represent recent research or changing sensibilities, so I'm hoping to have that clarified. Law stuff is easy, just dull. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as sourcing other people's stuff, depends on if the article follows or is a neat subset of any standard book. For this article, and Lake Burley Griffin and Canberra, the history didn't seem to match up anyway and the books were not written chronologically. The part of this article that I did took ages, but for Flag of Australia and Tom Playford it only took about 5-6 hours as they all matched Kwan and Cockburn quite seamlessly  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be stuck on a boat somewhere of the coast for a few days, so I've taken a copy of the page and the readings. I should have most of this done by the time i return, but won't have internet access in between. - Bilby (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I see you're back and editing. How is work going on this article? It's the second longest running FAR, so it would be nice to be able to get some reviewer's eyes on it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've finished expanding the section on the selection of the site for the ACT - that was my major concern, as it seemed that this was one of the most important topics. I've got a couple of sections to do today, then I'll sit down and go through the remaining issues raised on talk. It should be getting close, though. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold - Progress is still being made by Bilby and others. --mav(Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 19:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:DASH; the article mixes unspaced WP:EMDASHes and spaced WP:ENDASHes-- pick one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey has been teaching me about that. :) I'll take care of it today. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bilby, how is this coming? This is the longest running FAR at over 3.5 months - it would be really nice to be able to tell some reviewers that the article is ready to look at. The last serious work was over a week and a half ago... Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uni started again, so I had to get my lectures ready. :) I've expanded most of the sections that need it. I've identified the last section that I believe needs work, and I've read through the papers related to that. Normally I let that sit for a few days after reading to make sure that I'm not overly affected by the wording in the sources, then I try and get that down. I've got a bit of time today, so I'll get back into it now, and we should have that done. This should allow it to be ready for more review, as my main concern is comprehensiveness, and this should finish that off. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have done a bit of work on the article, including adding some omitted facts and refs that i think are significant. I see two things that need to be fixed for this to be OK to close, a minor one and a more major (but editorial) one:
 * Someone added a source "Wettenhall 2009" but didn't put it in the biblio and I have no idea what it is. This needs tracking down.
 * That was me. I'll add it when I get home. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The section "Resumption and disenfranchisement" is given seriously undue weight and is overwhelmingly based on a single article in a local historical journal, and what appears to be an unreliable webpage. It needs to be slashed, probably to about a para. I'm willing to have a go, but just flagging it in case it causes protests. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have done the second point - but someone else will have to try and resolve the first - i have been unsuccessful. But generally I think this is now a keep. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That section was to address the concern raised in regard to FAR that there was insufficient discussion given to what happened to the people who were there prior to the formation of the ACT. That said, having it shorter works for me. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unimpressive, to say the least.
 * Why is "Australia" linked a quarter of a second after "Australian Capital Territory". Should a link be bolded?
 * appears to have been dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The link piped to "administrative division" leads somewhere underwhelming that is also tagged as low quality.
 * This is the FAR for History of hte ACT, not the whole encyclopedia. I may be unfortunate that that article is dodgy, but that's life. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "In 1908, the region was cast into the national consciousness when it was selected as the site of the nation's future capital city."—the national consciousness is a little precious, isn't it?
 * appears to have been dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Pipe to "federal government" rather than "Government of Australia", yes? Isn't that clearer after federation was announced in the opening sentence? Comma before "and". Bin "also". Oh "Commonwealth" should not be used for an international readership, which will confuse it with the British Commonwealth, alive and well at the time. What does "It" refer to? A with + noun + -ing clumsiness. The last "Australian" in the lead ... we've seen that word enough, so remove it as redundant.
 * appears to have been dealt with, or i can't find the spot being referred to. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The city of Canberra developed and expanded to accommodate the Australian federal government, while the surrounding area has been developed to support the city,". A second before it's just "Canberra". Mixed tenses. Developed twice. City twice. This is a bombsite.
 * appears to have been dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not round off the lead by saying that "with the Northern Territory, it has become one of the eight second-level jurisdictions in Australia, along with the six states"? Not quite "autonomous"—the federal parliament can veto ACT legislation in a way that it can't veto state legislation. Needs pointing out that the ACT was given a full Westminster parliamentary system (way over the top, but there you are). And we need to be told that previously it was administered by the federal parliament both directly and through a local government entity.
 * The map: yes, it would have been better to enlarge the text and keep the px width a bit smaller: it's larger than life now, and the text on my display is squashed to about two words a line. At the very least, "center" it in the syntax and start the text under it. The second map has similar problems.
 * Either you have the smallest monitor known to computer kind, or i don't know what you're referring to. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "km²" links to "square metre": oh dear. And shouldn't it be converted for US, Burmese and Liberian readers? WP:LINK says not to link. And then "kilometres" is spelled out. Then I see miles converted into km: other way around, please (unless a quotation).
 * Have delinked - don't know how to do coversions. Tony can you help? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Refer to as "the Territory", or why not "the ACT", rather than rehearsing the full thing?
 * done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Further south into the area that is now a part of the Namadgi National Park." Is that a sentence? And "into" is presumptuous of motion. Stubby sentence structure in places.
 * I think this is fixed. Sentence reads "Settlers moved further south into what is now the Namadgi National Park." I thinnk the "presumption of motion" is fine in this context, if not to everyone's taste. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "establishing Australia as a major global wheat producer"—global is a bit pufffy (no sales to Mongolia, I'm sure); surely "a major wheat exporter"?
 * ?? Seems fine to me. No-one would translate "global" as meaning "Every single country". And producer isn't the same thing as exporter.


 * NSW government, which I like, but earlier "Government of NSW" with G. Australians don't usually use the "of" terms, do they? Perhaps WP articles are named such for international consistency, but I'd pipe where linked.
 * My word search didn't turn this up, so i htink it's fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A few of those old pics: is their res so low that they can't be enlarged a bit?
 * I get confused about this stuff - i thought we weren't suppoesd to 'force' sizes below 300 px or something, and i don't think these should be bigger than that, but i'll take advice. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a pity. Why aren't these issues being attended to? Where is Rebecca? We quarrel, but she is a good writer. Tony  (talk)  12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, how is work on this progressing? I see that some work has been progressing on the article, but there has been no response to Tony's comments in the past week. Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony's points are generally valid, but some would seem to have been quicker to fix than to explain here. Rebecca is more-or-less retired, to answer Tony's last question. There's a couple of us tweaking away, but really, i don't see this as a delist. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, ceding the point to Tony. Just took a complete hatchet to the verbose section "Search for a capital city location". Let's see what others think of it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I read/skimmed the whole article. Comprehensiveness, prose, images and referencing now all look up to FA standard. A couple dabs and dead external links need to be fixed though. --mav (reviews needed) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * disambigs dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;as the original nominator, all of my concerns have been addressed. In my opinion, this article now meets FA standards.  Special thanks to Bilby and Yellowmonkey for all their hard work in improving this article! –Grondemar 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.