At present this article begins 'Ronald Crauford Munro-Ferguson, 1st Viscount Novar, GCMG, KBE, PC (6 March 1860 – 30 March 1934), sixth Governor-General of Australia, was probably the most politically influential holder of this post.' The claim in the last clause here surely needs verification (the 'probably' particularly suggests it's just an opinion). Hasluck and Isaacs were senior ministers in Australian administrations with years of political experience before being made Governor-General. Munro-Ferguson was never a minister in the UK and just one of a number of peers with comparable personal connections who were given this office. Alethic (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a copy of a public domain article written by Percival Serle before Hasluck's service (but it certainly overlooks Isaacs. All of these Serle articles need to be updated and additional services added to balance (or surplant) Serle's opionions.--Grahame (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the "Strickland" paragraph with clarifyme tags at various places. No doubt the context and therefore meaning was clear to the original author, but for people not familiar with the source material, the paragraph is quite mystifying. Specifically:
in what sense is Strickland "of the old school"?
the royal appointment to which Government House (there are at least two in this context)?
what strain was showing in the London Liberal government? Context suggests that between Ferguson and Strickland, but why would that reflect in London?
what coalition is being referenced here? British, Australian or New South Wales?
in what way did Strickland snub the government? What is meant by "Government" here? What did he take directly to London? How does this statement relate to the next sentence?
what does it meant to say he "worked up" a memorial? What is an "annual memorial" - is it a ceremony?
why "but" - i.e. why is the memorial being popular inconsistent with Strickland claiming it to be a national celebration?
what deep emotional loyalty is being referenced, and how does it relate to the preceding sentence?
what press believed the Anzacs were shocktroops - Australian or British? The whole sentence seems non-sequitur, is it supposed to relate to the previous sentence?
what "status" is being referenced here? Did they get special rations? Should this say reputation? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)