|James Scullin was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: January 13, 2013.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Scullin was the 9th Prime Minister of Australia, not 13th. If a leader loses the Prime Ministership and takes it up again, that does not count as another PM (ala Deakin and Fisher). Timeshift 10:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:James Scullin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll be glad to take this review. I'll start with a close readthrough of the article text, noting initial problems that I see here, and then move on to the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is packed with good information, and at first glance appears comprehensive in its coverage of Scullin's life. (I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and will need to investigate this further.) However, a quick skim shows several issues, big and small, that will need to be addressed in this review:
- Neutrality - The article seems rather short on criticism of Scullin for someone who appears to be a controversial historical figure. Do historians universally admire him? Sentences like these set small alarm bells ringing for me:
- "He would remain a trusted éminence grise within the party until his retirement in 1949"
- "he nonetheless lived long enough to see many of his government's ideas validated by history and enacted by subsequent governments before his death in 1953"
- "in times which might have broken a lesser figure"
- The ultimate "takeaway" from the article, especially the legacy section, is that Scullin has been thoroughly vindicated in all respects by allies, enemies, and history, which makes me skeptical; while I know little about Scullin, history treats few national leaders so kindly, particularly those who lead under such difficult circumstances.
- Sourcing - Large parts of this article lack clear sourcing, including some statements of opinion: "At the first meeting of cabinet upon his return, Scullin made things worse by reappointing Theodore as treasurer, despite his name not having been yet cleared over the Mungana Affair. Although arguably Theodore was the most competent man available to implement Scullin's economic program, Lyons and Fenton (as well as several others) were strong opposed and resigned from the cabinet in protest." These opinions (such as the evaluation of Theodore) should be clearly attributed to a specific source or sources in-text as well as in footnotes for NPOV as well as sourcing reasons.
- " To date" --avoid phrases that can go out of date per WP:REALTIME
- "commenced a new era in the secondary industry field in Australia" -- all quotations must be clearly sourced.
- Copyedit -- the first sentence of the article contained a grammatical error, and while I hate being the guy who's a jerk about copyediting, things like that and the duplicate sentence "To date, it is the last time that a sitting Australian government has been defeated after a single term. To date, it is the last time that a sitting Australian government has been defeated after a single term" suggest to me that this article still needs a close readthrough. I can help with this as we go along, too.
To summarize that into clearer action points, I'd say the next steps are to:
- clearly source all controversial/challengeable information, judgements, and quotations
- include critical evaluations of Scullin as well as positive in legacy section and lead
- revise or more clearly attribute non-neutral descriptions of Scullin's greatness
- give a thorough copyedit
I realize this is a tall order, and to be honest I thought about quick-failing this one. But it's an important article, and I can see how much work you've already put into it. I'd be glad to work with you over the next two weeks to try to get this up to GA standard if you like. If you think more time is needed to address these points, I'll mark this review as not ready for listing for now, but you'll be welcome to renominate once some or all of the above has been addressed. Just let me know your preference. In any case, though, please don't be discouraged by the above critique! Your work on this article has been very valuable, and I'm confident this will get to GA soon, even if it's not this week. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)