Talk:Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Generally a very good article. There are a couple of minor issues with broadness, and I think the prose could do with some improvement, but this is pretty much ready to be a GA. My full review is below. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it well-written?[edit]

Good to very good. There are a couple of issues with jargon (frankly, I'm probably more familiar with Australian politics than about 99% of English speakers outside of Australia, and there were some terms I didn't know), and a few places where I think the wording could be tightened.

  • What's a party-room vote?
    I hope this explanation is an improvement. [1]
  • It is sometimes referred to as a "party-room" vote, and in other places as a "partyroom" vote. This should be made consistent.
    Done - I've gone with party-room. [2]
  • "Abbott, on the other hand, came to represent..." I'd lose "on the other hand" as superfluous, but that's not mandatory.
    Done. [3]
  • "...a large number of Liberal members of Parliament..." First, I'd shorten "a large number of" to "many". Second, since the abbreviated "MP" is used later on, its meaning should be established here (i.e. "Liberal Members of Parliament (MPs)"), unless there's some significant difference between Australian and Canadian politics of which I'm unaware.
    Done - I've abbreviated it further up the page. [4]
  • "...or who otherwise opposed..." "who" is superfluous.
  • What's a "spill motion"?
    I've explained in parentheses and sourced the explanation to the main Australian dictionary - a "spill" is defined there as a vacating of leadership positions, and "spill motion" as a motion to bring about a spill. Unfortunately the dictionary is subscription only.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "candicacy" - misspelling?
  • "Hockey—a moderate in the Liberal Party who had been a supporter of Turnbull's position on the ETS—also stood as a candidate" "in the Liberal Party" and "as a candidate" both strike me as superfluous.
    Done. [7]
  • "While Hockey had been expected to win the ballot..." Is there a need for "the ballot"?
  • "Malcolm Turnbull had been elected to the House of Representatives in the 2004 federal election." Since we haven't yet established a temporal point of reference, I'd suggest losing the pluperfect.
  • "In January 2007 he was appointed as Minister for the Environment and Water Resources by Prime Minister John Howard." To my Canadian ear, the "as" seems superfluous, but I'll defer to you.
    Yes I think that is redundant.[10]
  • "After the Howard government's defeat by the Australian Labor Party in the 2007 election..." Reword to the active voice?
  • "There was speculation Turnbull..." "speculation that Turnbell"? (I know, I'm telling you to take out superfluous words, then I'm telling you to put "that" in can't win with me).
    I confess (that) never know what to do about "that". I've put it back in here.[12]
  • " a policy of the Howard government shortly before the government's defeat." This seems too wordy. Couldn't "as a policy of the Howard government" go, what with the whole collective responsibility thing?
    It was a policy that was never enacted, so I think we have to say it was a "policy" in order to avoid the suggestion that it was ever implementd. But it is probably more accurate to say it was a policy of the Liberal Party so I've changed that.[13]
  • "The tensions within the Coalition on climate change policy had contributed to the downfall of Turnbull's predecessor, Brendan Nelson, as he attempted and failed to resolve the divisions." We've already met Nelson and been told that he was Turnbull's predecessor. Maybe something a little more succinct, like "Tensions within the Coalition on climate change policy had contributed to the downfall of the Nelson government"?
    Done, said "Nelson's leadership" as he wasn't in government.[14]
  • There's inconsistent capitalization of "coalition".
  • "...but would be open to negotiate..." Open to negotiating, no?
    Done. [16]
  • " amended version of the ETS." "of the ETS" could go.
  • "Turnbull's willingness to negotiate with the government over an ETS..." Again, I'd lose "over an ETS"; context makes it clear.
  • "Turnbull fronted the coalition joint partyroom..." I have no idea what this means; I think it might be specific to Australian politics, in which case a rewording or strategic wikilinking is called for.
    I've removed the jargon "joint partyroom" and replaced it with a "meeting of Coalition MPs". I've then wikilinked the first mention of Coalition. Consistent capitalision of coalition/Coalition to come below.[19]
  • "However there was speculation that a number of coalition Senators would defy Turnbull and vote against any ETS legislation in the Senate." I'd lose " the Senate", since that's where we'd expect Senators to vote. If you don't think it's clear, maybe transfer the wikilink over to "Senator"?
    The point I was trying to emphasis here is that the Senators would actually cross the floor in the Senate rather than vote against Turnbull somewhere else (eg the party room). So I've now changed the wording to "cross the floor" and wikilinked to that phrase. I'm not sure whether "cross the floor of the Senate" might be redundant.[20]
  • "...disputing the authority of Turnbull's leadership..." Why not just "...disputing Turnbull's authority..."?
  • "At the same time, Abbott—who had publicly supported the ETS—was now arguing..." Lose either "at the same time" or "now", as they're currently redundant.
    Removed "At the same time".[22]
  • "the coalition's climate change spokesman Ian Macfarlane agreed a deal with the government..." There seems to be a preposition of some kind missing here.
    Changed to "agreed to".[23]
  • "Turnbull took the deal to Liberal MPs for formal approval, but a majority of backbenchers spoke in opposition to the deal." Awkward repetition of "the deal"; this is why God created pronouns. How about "Turnbull took the deal to Liberal MPs for formal approval, but a majority of backbenchers opposed it"? Indeed, do we know that the majority of backbenchers actually spoke against it?
    Changed to "opposed it".[24]. This source says that "40 backbenchers spoke against the deal". 40 would be a majority of Liberal backbenchers - I'd hope that's permissible mathematics rather than impermissible original research. In any case, "oppposed it" is simpler and conveys the same essential meaning.
  • " including in the number of supporters..." "...counting as supporters" is a little more succinct.
  • "Turnbull's decision to claim support..." "This claim..."?
  • "...was met with rancour by his opponents..." Are talking about opponents in his own party? If so, that should probably be somehow made clear.
    Changed to "opponents in the coalition".[27]
  • "Abbott's resignation was accompanied by several others', including Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, Sophie Mirabella and Tony Smith." Doesn't quite work, since we go from possessive to non-possessive. Maybe "Several others joined Abbott in resigning, including..."
    Yes active voice is much clearer here. Done.[28]
  • "Hockey consulted senior party figureheads..." The term "figurehead" as I understand it (and my understanding could certainly be off) describes someone who occupies a nominally important position without wielding any real power. Would "figures" be better here? Or "dignitaries"?
    Sure, I've change to "dignitaries".[29]
  • "Hockey's potential candidacy presented a dilemma." Whom did it present with a dilemma? I assume Hockey himself, in which case it might be better worded as "Hockey was faced with a dilemma", or similar.
  • "...and was also still a firm supporter..." Why "also"?
    Yes that's superfluous - removed.[31]
  • ...rather than seeking to bind Liberal Party MPs to support or oppose it." Since conscience vote is wikilinked, this part may be redundant.
  • "Abbott rejected the purported compromise position..." Why "purported"?
    I've changed to "Abbott rejected Hockey's declaration" as that seems simpler.[33]
  • "On Hockey's candidacy, Turnbull claimed that Hockey had pledged his opposition to the spill motion. However, if the spill motion succeeded, Hockey would stand for the leadership against Turnbull and Abbott." Right now, all of this reads as though it's Turnbull's claim, but I'm not sure whether the second sentence is intended to be or not.
    The second sentence shouldn't be Turnbull's claim, so I've said "it was expected that..." which is covered by the source.[34]
  • "Turnbull denied that he had given, and therefore broken, any such undertaking to Hockey." I'd lose "to Hockey", unless Turnbull acknowledged giving such an undertaking to someone else.
  • "...following which Turnbull, Hockey and Abbott nominated..." "were nominated", surely?
    The source says "stood for", which I guess could mean a self-nom or accepting a nomination from someone else. I think the ambiguity can be avoided by just saying they "contested a ballot"?[36]
  • "...and there was one vote of "no", which was recorded as informal." What does "recorded as informal" mean?
    I've wikilinked "informal" to spoilt vote.[37]
  • "...while Hockey expressed "surprise" at his defeat." I don't think the quotation remarks are helpful here.
    Removed the quotation marks.[38]
  • "Abbott immediately acknowledged his propensity..." The "immediately" makes it sound as though he did this as soon as the ballots were counted. Is that the case? It seems an odd way to greet an election victory, if so.
    Removed "immediately"; I don't think it needs to be replaced with another adverb.[39]
  • "...apologising for all his "errors of the past"." I'd suggest changing to "...and apologised".
  • "Turnbull voluntarily decided to move..." Redundant; change to "Turnbull voluntarily moved..."
  • "...rather than remain in the Shadow Cabinet." I think this could go without loss of meaning. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?[edit]

Everything appears well-cited, and all sources used appear appropriate. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?[edit]

Generally pretty good - there are just a couple of places that I think could do with elaboration.

  • "Later in the month, Minchin spoke against the ETS in the Senate, backed by 17 coalition Senators." If it was just a speech (as distinct to a vote), how do we know exactly how many Senators backed him?
    This source says 17 Senators showed up in the Senate as a display of support. Rather than spell that out explicitly (as you say we don't know how many others supported him but didn't show up), I've just removed the "backed by 17 coalition Senators". The key point of the sentence is Minchin's position and it's probably not important to say (or speculate) how much support he had for it.[43]
  • The last couple of sentences of aftermath could use some elaboration - I'd suggest converting them into a freestanding paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    I've added a new paragraph dealing in more detail with Turnbull's actions after his defeat (eg his response to Abbott's policy and his decision to leave, and then remain, in Parliament. I didn't want to take it any further than this paragraph as it might be seen to be overly focused on Turnbull. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it neutral?[edit]

Looks good - very well done on this front. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it stable?[edit]

Pass. No significant changes in weeks. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?[edit]

Pass. All images used are appropriate and properly licensed. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good; I'm passing the article as a GA. As a parting comment, have you considered creating some kind of template for Liberal leadership elections rather than having to include them in a "See also" section? Steve Smith (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect only three Liberal leadership elections have articles. For example, there aren't any for 1994, 1990 etc, not even for McMahon-Gorton (change of PM) in 1971. So a template would probably have many more redlinks than blue. Of course, by the same token, that means there's lots of work to do turning those redlinks blue! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah - this is me thinking as a Canadian, again, since here party leadership contests are drawn out processes with campaigns that (in most cases, historically, though not always anymore) culminate in major conventions of party members (since here leaders are chosen by party members, rather than MPs). As a result, most leadership contests of major Canadian parties have articles, but I suppose your more perfunctory approach would be less likely to lead to them. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)