Wikipedia:Peer review/Australia/archive1

Australia[edit]

I'm working on getting this article up to featured status. I'm currently trackng down references, this article has been written by a lot of different people, making the refs a pain to get a hold of. Please point out anything that you think should be referenced, but isn't. I'd also like some feedback on the general structure of the article as well as the text. Thanks --nixie 07:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good overall. I think the history section needs to include some type of commentary on how England used Australia as a kind of dumping ground for convicts in the 1800s, under the sentence of transportation. There's a remark about this under one of the images further down, but it's also a notable historical element. The history could also use a mention of Australia's role in both world wars. Also hasn't Australia had a certain notable success in the film industry? — RJH 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I added the convicts to the history, added info on the wars, and added a section on film and tv production in culture --nixie 01:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its a good article, but its too long. At 48kb it is way over the recommended limit of 32kb. If I were reviewing it in the FAC, I would object until the size is brought down. You see, articles like these have discrete sections (as opposed to continous sections such as History) and can very well be shortened. (See Talk:United States - Quest for shortnening where I've lent my comments on the article size). The second point I've found lacking are inline references. If you say 005–06 budget provides $2.5 billion show me where you have referenced the figure from. Take a look at India for how this is achieved. =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. First up, size, at least in my experience, isn't an issue for FACs anymore with many exceeding the 32kb suggested limit. There are parts that could potentially be shortened, and I'll have another go at that. I think that for a summrary article of this type it is impractical to use footnotes so I used inote, the references are there but you need to be in edit mode to see them, there is no policy on refernce style an dinote is preferred by many editors. --nixie 07:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - 1) As far as size is concerned, yes its not so much an issue now but for the sake of readability it is better you compress the subject matter. While history articles can be long, articles such as Australia should provide a summary of the salient points of Australia. Each section should not be an article itself. eg. You have a long history section but the History of Australia is badly done. I would suggest that the history section be moved to the [History of Australia] page (before 1901 and after 1901 can remain the child links from that page.) Summarise, the history section and make it to make it shorter. You can do the same with ==demographics== and ==culture==. 2) Unless all the references come from the same source I would strongly recommend that you do not use this style as there are better referencing styles. Use the styles on the India page: Wikipedia:Footnote3 and Wikipedia:Footnote4. For invisible notes, see Template talk:Inote. =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    - I concur with Nichalp that the footnoting system is perhaps the better of the referencing styles, and I believe it to be the system used more commonly in formal writing (like say, encyclopædia). But it might be best to convert to this referencing system later on, when closer to feature status – its just easier development-wise.--Cyberjunkie 09:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As another editor of the Australia article, I agree with nixie that the article's length is of little consequence. Whilst, as mentioned, some areas could potentially be shortened, limiting the article to 32kb would seriously compromise its quality.--Cyberjunkie 09:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - get to work then :) Footnote 4 is the nicest to use.--nixie 09:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm. I actually like a mixture of Footnotes 2 and 3. I like 2 because of the in text number does not have brackets (less clunky) and 3 for the 'where in the text' link. But hey, can't have your cake and eat it, right? Oh, and shouldn't the footnote be placed after the full stop (period)? But then, I suppose that wouldn't work (with the template and all). So footnote 4 it is?--Cyberjunkie 10:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe that by reducing the article length you are sacrificing quality. I've long been involved with the India page, and as you can see, the entire contents of the page totals 29kb. A million things could be said about Australia and future editors could very well go on adding stuff here. That's why we need a summary here and the best way to do so is by précis writing. For a good summary of a long article see the ==History== section of India. You may also read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries on what sections are recommended. =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The page has been pruned to 35kb, shorter that FA Cambodia (36kb) and FA South Africa (38kb). The Wikiproject countires suggested headings are just that and you will have noticed that no featured country follows them exactly, countries that have attempted to get featured recently have been criticised for lacking a level of comprehensiveness in the topics covered, I really would prefer it if the article was quite comprehensive rather than a long list of facts directed to other artiles. --nixie 02:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. And I still maintain that zealously cutting the article to recommended size would compromise its quality and constitute a 'dumbing down' of the article. Nevertheless, most of the trimming carried out so far has been okay.--Cyberjunkie 05:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its almost perfect. Good job guys. I agree that the article should be comprehensive and include as many topics as possible, but at the same time have well chosen sentences and generalised statements. I think my referral was slightly misunderstood, I had said 'reccomended' and mean it it imply enforced. I was against the excess subbheadings though, which made the page look ugly. One more thing: Australia willingly participated in World War I. I'm debating the word "willingly". Did the British monarch decide for Aus, or was there an overwhelming paliamentary vote, or was there a refendum? & how willing? I think that word needs to be referenced or 'willingly' be removed, as it could be subjective. You could also add a line mentioning the difference between a state and territory. =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Willingly is subjective, I suppose. I don't doubt it to be true, however, for Australia at that time was fervently 'for Empire'. I don't know chances of finding a reference. It could also be used to describe Australia's participation in World War II, and for that they're may be references (I'm thinking of Menzies "It is my melancholy duty...").--Cyberjunkie 03:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading Australia was quite happy to fight in WWI, gung-ho even, it was WWII where there were reservations, I'll look for an actual quote. --nixie 12:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there were reservations in retrospect. But at the outbreak, let's not forget who was Prime Minister; "British to the bootstraps". But then, it has been a while since last studying the era, so perhaps I'm mixing my perspectives (or World Wars even!). I'll have to do some reading now..--Cyberjunkie 12:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first official statement, by Senator Millen, Minister for Defence, on Friday, July 31st, the day when the danger that Britain would be involved in the war became really evident. “If necessity arises,” he said, “Australia will recognise that she is not merely a fair-weather partner of the Empire, but a component member in all circumstances.” Prime Minister Joseph Cook, “ If there is to be a war, you and I shall be in it. We must be in it. If the old country is at war, so are we.” By all accounts the public support for Australia to enter the war was strong too, sdding ref now. --nixie 12:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]