Jump to content

Talk:1860 Town of Christchurch by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Town of Christchurch by-election, 1860/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 08:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Hopefully won't take too long; I'll try to get it finished relatively promptly. I'll probably just go through and list questions or comments, I welcome replies to these, and am not saying that they are crucial to passing. - Shudde talk 08:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not an expert at prose, but the opening sentence "The Town of Christchurch by-election in 1860 was caused during the term of the 2nd New Zealand Parliament by the resignation of Richard Packer from the Town of Christchurch electorate." doesn't read very well. Could it be reorganised to something such as "The Town of Christchurch by-election in 1860 was caused by the resignation of Richard Packer as the Member of the House of Representatives for the Town of Christchurch electorate, and occurred during the term of the 2nd New Zealand Parliament."?
  • "back on track"? - is there something more descriptive that could be substituted here?
  • Reference number 1 gives me a dead link - are you referring to [1]? If so, the reference needs to be reformatted.
  • Is there any information on why Richard Packer resigned?
  • Question? I'm guessing that Hart hit the nail on the head when he talked of Packer as a locum tenens. But I shall do some reading; I've got a couple of books that may well comment on this. If nothing else, I could add the locums tenens bit as an accusation by the other candidate to the lead, so readers can consider this aspect. Schwede66 03:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I think that comment from Hart should maybe be mentioned earlier in the article - not necessarily the lead, but it could somehow be incorporated into the "candidates" section. As long as it is clear that Hart himself made the suggestion, and it may or may not be true, then I think this would avoid any NPOV/undue weight problems. - Shudde talk 11:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY My two history books are silent on this issue. I've tried to find something in contemporary newspapers, but haven't been too successful. What I have done is to expand the Town of Christchurch by-election, 1856 article, and that goes into it a little bit deeper. There's now content in there that could be copied across to this article, too (e.g. Sewell not having returned from Parliament in Auckland to Canterbury prior to leaving for England in 1856; it would thus at least have been difficult to arrange Packer's alleged place holding beforehand). It has an element of synthesis, though, and might thus not be appropriate; please let me know what you think. Schwede66 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think sometimes the tense you use in Campaign section switches between present and past; it makes it a little difficult to read. Would be good if it was one or the other.
  • "The editorial urges Sewell to address the issue of improved education when he will represent Christchurch again at Parliament." - prose - "The editorial urges Sewell to address the issue of improved education when he again represents Christchurch at Parliament."?
  • "criticism of Sewell's policies and plans not known to the public" - being unknown to the public?
  • "The editorial used the following words about Sewell:" - "An editorial said of Sewell:"?
  • "Still based in Lyttelton in 1860 (the newspaper moved to Christchurch in 1863) and a bi-weekly, the editorial also expressed disappointment that they could not report on the meeting called by Sewell.[17]" - this reads poorly
  • Is there anything that can be said regarding the influence of the Lyttelton Times at the time? Were there any other newspapers, and if so, how did their influence compare to LT? I ask this because clearly this article relies heavily on material from it.
  • Question?That's a tricky one. At the time, the was only one other newspaper, the Canterbury Standard. I don't know much about it, other than that Joseph Brittan started it and that he lost a lot of money through it. I can't imagine that it was overly influential, as it isn't even listed on this page about Christchurch newspapers. There's is hardly anything online about it, and the two books that I'm aware of (Newspapers in New Zealand by Guy Scholefield, and The Making of the New Zealand Press by Patrick Adam Day) aren't available on Google Books in any useful form. They have the Canterbury Standard on microfilm at the library; maybe I go and have a look and see how they reported on the election. What do you think? Schwede66 05:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I don't think it is necessary for you to visit the library! It's not going to answer the main question anyway. Maybe a footnote saying that there was only one other newspaper in the town/region at the time. - Shudde talk 11:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The meeting on 17 January was crowded; many attendees were not electors (franchise was attached to land ownership in excess of £50, or yearly rental over £10,[19] and the resulting roll was only about 160 names long, including absentee owners in England[20]), but there had been rumours beforehand that somebody would come forward to oppose Sewell.[21]" - maybe try and remove the parenthesis, this information is very important to an article on an election; also makes moving [20] to after punctuation easier.
  • "He disagreed with Stafford's government on some issues, but the two most important ones were land policy (where Sewell wanted the land revenue to be retained by the provincial governments, rather than the southern provinces pay a high proportion of their revenue to enable purchase of land in the north) and native policy (where Sewell predicted that the land policy being pursued would result in strong conflict with Māori; in fact, the First Taranaki War started in March 1860).[21] " - again with parenthesis
  • "his was the first time that such a suggestion had been made in public by a politician. The Lyttelton Times argued, against the objection of many, that such an idea had merit for further consideration.[22]" - I'm not sure if this is adequately referenced; and relies on a primary source.
  • Question? I have improved referencing of this aspect, reworded it to make clear that it was the editor who believed that this was the first time, and added a couple of secondary sources. Have a look whether it satisfies you. Schwede66 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref [19] goes dead, but think it is now located at [2]

I think the article is very interesting, and well referenced. You should be congratulated for getting it to where it is. I have a couple of comments above on prose, and the article does rely on primary sources a bit, however I'm confident that there is no original research or "synthesis". It definitely meets the broadness criteria, images are fine, is stable, and neutral. I think if the prose is fixed up then it'll be in even better shape, and will comfortably pass GA. I'll place it on hold, and will check back here regularly. If you have any questions or comments I welcome them. If you want an urgent reply, it may be best to ping me on my talk page. - Shudde talk 09:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now – thanks for the prompt responses. The article is considerably better now; I'm happy to pass it. - Shudde talk 10:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1860_Town_of_Christchurch_by-election&oldid=1195750807"