Talk:1916 Australian conscription referendum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Unus M, I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll start out with a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments-- opening sections

So far this looks like solid work to me, though I've noted a few possible issues below. I've tweaked some of the language for grammatical and stylistic reasons, but feel free to revert any edits you disagree with. Here are my comments from the first half of the article; I'll go through the rest once these have been addressed. Thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Plebiscite vs. referendum -- is it possible to explain the difference between these two in Australian law? Perhaps using a footnote, or a parenthetical?
• "They needed around 20,000 men at once" -- who is "they" here?
• "something which Hughes made considerable beef of during the eventual campaign" -- a bit awkward, but more importantly, the idiom "made beef of" should be rewritten into plain language per WP:WTA
• "No such referendum was strictly necessary," -- here the language appears to suggest that plebiscite/referendum are interchangable
• ""Hughes reveled in his own success as a charismatic leader, and it appealed strongly to his romantic nature to be able to talk directly with the people"" -- the nature of this quotation isn't clear--is this the close associate speaking, or a historian summarizing?
• "He pulled out all the stops" -- rewrite cliche/idiom into plain language per WP:WTA; this helps make the encyclopedia more accessible to non-native speakers.
• "that the opposition that had emerged would be carried for the proposal" -- I'm not sure I understand "carried for" here--does it mean something like "persuaded to support"?
• "watering down" -- idiom -- perhaps "weakening" or "reduction"?
• "with conscription only to be implemented to make up the deficit in voluntary recruitment, with the general call-up being postponed until October, and should the numbers needed be reached by volunteerism by October, the proposal would be scrapped" --this becomes a very long sentence. Can it be broken into two?
• ""For an hour, he addressed members, trying by every one of his many oratorical, logical and political tricks to convert all, or at least some, of the Executive members to support his referendum campaign"" -- another quotation that you should make the source of clear in-text. Perhaps, "Holloway states that, "For an hour ... " But I'm not sure you actually need to give a full sentence quotation here at all. Could this just be put in your own words?
• "was going to fight for a 'Yes' vote as though he were fighting for his very life" -- identify writer of quotation in text--is this Hughes directly or the historian?
• "Hughes has been unsuccessful in taking the bulk of his party along with him." -- it's confusing that this is in present tense ("has been"), but the "along with him" is also a little unclear--is he leaving the party?
• "stared down" -- another idiom, and I'm not sure the phrase is needed. Perhaps just "Hughes nonetheless committed himself fully..."?
• What are the Coburn and Collingwood branches? Are these people or places? In either case, you might link them. If people, it would be helpful to say, perhaps, "Coburn's" instead of "Coburn".
• "Opponents to the bill" -- is it fair to still call it a bill after it's become a plebiscite?
• "One of the most ugly contentions" -- this seems a bit editorializing; I've removed it for now as it doesn't appear to be needed, but let me know if you disagree.
• "just about every influential public man in Australia otherwise supported" -- This could use some clarity. Do you mean outside of the Labor party almost everyone supported it? It seems like we've heard of many opponents already.
• " some of the most powerful images " -- a bit editorializing; this judgement should be supported with a clear source or removed.

Not listing at this time

Since it's been about a week without response to the above concerns, and the editor appears inactive, I'm not listing this one at this time. To summarize, from what I've looked at so far, I think this wouldn't require too much work to get to GA, but it will require a bit of rewriting for clearer sourcing, clarity of phrasing, and avoidance of idiom. If anyone chooses to bring this up to GA in the future (and I hope someone does!) that's where I'd suggest starting. Thanks to everybody for getting this far! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)