Jump to content

Talk:Ged Kearney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ged Kearney. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not first nurse

[edit]

Several people on the ABC have claimed that Kearney is the first nurse to be elected to the House of Representatives (Fran Kelly on Insiders), or even the federal parliament (Annabel Crabb on the SA Votes coverage). This Wikidata query shows there were two others (Wendy Fatin and Trish Worth). I believe they have corrected it now, but just in case someone adds this claim to the article... --Canley (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very late in ABC coverage Crabb also mentioned Sue West and Judith Adams as other nurses who had served in federal parliament. Frickeg (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Shirley Walters, Patricia Giles and Olive Zakharov. Yes, Crabb said she had been copping it on Twitter after saying that! Insiders also tweeted a correction after the broadcast citing Fatin and Worth. I saw the ABC did a feature on former occupations of current MPs a few days earlier, which noted there were currently no former nurses in parliament—I guess that was misinterpreted a bit. --Canley (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ged Kearney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hello, I'll be reviewing this article using the table below. This will be my first GA review, so bear with me. Feel free to ask any questions below. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your comments so far- I am italicising the ones I have completed. GraziePrego (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Replying here as replying within the table doesn't format properly) I see what you mean about the relevance of the fish accosting Kearney on election day- it is an unusual and interesting detail though? It does also show a bit how focused the campaigning was on the environment. Still very happy to go with your judgement on it though, it is hardly the most vital point to understanding Kearney.
    The other stuff about campaign divisions- "Divisions within the Greens' campaign assisted Kearney. During the by-election campaign, an internal complaint of bullying by Bhathal was leaked to the media, and members of the Greens' Darebin branch requested her expulsion from the party following Bhathal's support for Lidia Thorpe in the 2017 Northcote state by-election." I agree with moving to the by-election article. GraziePrego (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my mind also- The Fish can move to the by-election article :) GraziePrego (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that decision. It is definitely a lot more relevant to the scope of the by-election article. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GraziePrego: The article now meets the GA criteria, terrific work. Congratulations to you and as well to everyone else who contributed to the article. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

In relation to this revision:

  • FN41: The authors name is written twice, also has the words "medical editor" which is causing an error.
  • FN22: The citation contains multiple authors all in one parameter. Please enumerate the first and last parameter for each author. (eg: |last2= and |first2=).
  • FN44: Same as above.
  • FN29: SBS News seems to have wired their article from Australian Associated Press (AAP). For this reference, change the parameters so: |work=Australian Associated Press and |agency=SBS News.
  • A few citations I have seen do not mention the author name (FN9 & FN10) I suggest going through at all the references without author names and seeing if an authors name can be added to the citation (particularly ABC News sources) and also looking for wire services as mentioned in the above bulletin and adding that into the citation.

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also–

  • FN50: Replace health.gov.au with Department of Health and Aged Care as the publisher.
  • FN38 – Statement on new Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery – doesn't seem to be verifying anything in the article.

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE: this revision– I have notice a few more citations with health.gov.au that should be replaced with 'Department of Health and Aged Care' as the publisher. (FNs 42, 43 & 48) ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where a citation's |website= or |publisher= is a URL (eg: www.abc.net.au or parlinfo.aph.gov.au) replace it with the actual website name– ie: ABC News or Parliament of Australia (if possible). Also for future reference, where the website or publisher of a source has a wikipedia article, wikilink it within the parameter– eg. |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]]. The same applies when an author of a source has a wikipedia article– you can use the |author-link= parameter to add the authors wikipedia page (eg: |author-link=Chris Bowen). ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: this revision– FN2 needs to be fixed, it has "Australian Parliament House" as the author's last name for which there is no author. To fix this remove the |author= and |author-link= parameters, change the title to |title=Kearney, the Hon. Gerardine (Ged) Mary, change the website parameter to |website=Parliamentary Handbook - Parliamentary Library, and add– |publisher=Department of Parliamentary Services and |via=[[Parliament of Australia]]. I also see a similar problem with FN22, FN38, & FN39. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN14 (this revision) needs to be reworked. It says the website is Ministerial Press Release when it is Parliament of Australia, and the title shouldn't have parlinfo -. To save you time, I suggest when citing your sources to insert the info manually and not use the autofill as it often produces errors, particularly when you intend to submit the article for GAR. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.

As far as I can tell, the following info has not been properly verified:

  • Early life & infobox: The article says Kearney was born in Richmond, Melbourne whereas the source says Ged grew up in... Richmond.
  • Infobox:
    • Add a source verifying the date Kearney was sworn into her ministerial portfolio.
    • Add a source verifying the date Cooper replaced Batman.
    • Add a source verifying ACTU departure date of 2 February 2018.
    • Add a source verifying Kearney's date of birth. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the career section, the phrase – receiving the support of around 70% of the unions in the ACTU – appears to be backed up by a primary source. Please see if a secondary source can be found to verify this fact or state in the article something like: "at the time, Kearney claimed...". ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • This passage – On the day of the by-election, an environmental protester dressed as a fish accosted Kearney and Shorten at a polling booth. – doesn't seem to be relevant either. Further, a lot of the drama there regarding the Green's internal fighting is probably more appropriate to be moved to the 2018 Batman by-election article. Again, if you disagree, don't hesitate to let me know. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • After a quick skim I have found the following, if you disagree, don't hesitate to let me know:
    • In the union movement section, this passage – In June 2012, during Fiji's transition to democracy, Kearney attended an International Labour Organization conference in Switzerland, where she witnessed a representative of the Fijian military regime attempt to intimidate a Fijian unionist by filming him speaking, against the rules of the conference. – doesn't seem to be relevant to the biography, if there isn't a way for the occurrence to be better tied into the article then it probably best to removed it.
    • Same as above for this passage in the Batman by-election section: The Australian Conservation Foundation distributed material stating that only the Greens would "stop Adani's mine from going ahead". (Please disregard, I changed my mind)
I will keep this, and 2c, on hold for now in case I find anything else that needs addressing in my detailed prose review (which I will most likely complete by the end of tomorrow AEDT).

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pass ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall assessment.

The article, in my view, now meets the GA criteria. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Bruxton talk 00:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by GraziePrego (talk). Self-nominated at 06:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ged Kearney; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  •  Working The source for ALT1 is actually only good for her election, not for the fact that she represented Batman for those years. I think what you need is a source that specifically says what years she served as member for Batman. The other source is fine for the other two hooks. I'll do a checlist once the source issue is addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article length and recent GA are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. The hooks are all interesting, I prefer ALT1 because of the Batman double-meaning, then the main hook as it makes me want to find out why, but ALT1 needs a source that actually supports the hook (see above). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ged_Kearney&oldid=1256151832"