Talk:April 1865 Bruce by-election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~which in those days was called Tokomairiro or Tokomairaro, as why the Court House is called that way: odd phrasing, and I don't really understand what it's trying to say.~~

Done. Too much information and what I was trying to say didn't need to be said on reflection. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why do we care which news paper reported the returning office selecting a date?~~
- Answer: We don't. I've removed the entire sentence as unneeded. ...And that was before I read your comment below. :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Oops. Wasn't paying attention; didn't mean to make the same comment twice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was following a report by the Otago Daily Times on 23 March 1865 that the Returning Officer had selected that date: unnecessary detail, surely? Why do we care that a newspaper reported that this would be the date?
- Done. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You follow the order of Gillies' speech, in which he gives Burns' name at the end of the speech; I don't think it's necessary to do so. I wouldn't fail the article for this but it seems to be just a rhetorical device, and not really of encyclopedic interest. Up to you.

Meh. I'm not so happy with the wording of that sentence, but it wasn't due to that. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some words as Henry Clapcott's representative, an action opposed by other electors: they opposed him speaking? After reading the source I was able to figure it out, but this paragraph is a bit hard to follow. I would suggest rewriting this as an explanation to a modern reader of the sequence of events; it currently reads as though you're trying to follow the spirit of the original newspaper article (e.g. "Laughingly").
~~which drew problems: unclear.~~
- What is unclear about it? It seems good to me. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never heard the phrase "drew problems" so I wasn't sure what was intended. Do you mean Clapcott's post as Treasurer "drew comments [or complaints] that it would be a problem" (i.e. you're reporting that others claimed this), or are you stating that it was in fact a problem (in which case "drew" is not the right verb)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've heard the phrase before but can't seem to find it on Google Books. Anyhow I've removed most of that sentence as already said and unneeded for that section. Done. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a couple of places there are comments that the province would be left without a functioning executive, but it also appears that election to the House of Representatives requires the resignation of the provincial seat, so the executive roles could be filled again. So it's not clear what the problem was.
Clapcott placed an advertisement on 5 April in the Otago Daily Times stating that he had withdrawn from the contest for the seat, meaning that the reason for the poll was then moot: why was it moot? There was only one vacancy, and two candidates, so the election had to proceed, didn't it?
- Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalf explains it. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I'm still not getting it. The poll they demanded was held on 8 April 1865. That was the actual election, not some separate poll. The election was not moot; there were two candidates and only one seat. What am I missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not say that the election was moot; I said that the reason for the poll was now moot; the reason for the poll was that supporters of Clapcott demanded it, and as Clapcott withdrew before the election the reason for the poll was then moot. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's what confusing me. Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalf, which was held on 8 April 1865, then The election was held on 8 April 1865...the poll was then moot. However, the poll still proceeded, followed by the election results. So the poll happened on the same day as the election? But you give no results of the poll? The way it's written it looks as though the poll and the election are the same thing, but from your answers it appears that's not the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The poll is the election. I've clarified that. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I finally figured this out; the election would not have been necessary had Clapcott's supporters conceded on 31 March. But why do you say the 8 April election was moot? It's true that if Clapcott's supporters had conceded there would have been no election, but the election included other candidates than Burns, and one of them might have beaten Burns and been elected, so it was not moot, was it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the "Aftermath" section seems irrelevant to this article. The only thing that would seem to be relevant is the length of time that Burns served, and perhaps the dates of the next by-elections.
~~the electorate was won by John Cargill: surely "the election", not "the electorate"?~~

Done. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is not very strong; I've copyedited a few obvious infelicities but a good copyeditor would help, and in several places I wasn't sure of the intended meaning. I think the accounts taken from the newspaper of the electors' meeting need to be recast as modern explanations. The article seems comprehensive; I've no trouble believing there are few other sources. I'll place this on hold to give you time to work on these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J947, have just returned from some holidays and can now lend a hand. Is there anything in particular that you'd like me to attend to? Schwede 66 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Maybe the seventh point down as you were the one that added that and I can't answer it. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to clarify that point. J947: there's one other outstanding point; see my last comment above about the word "moot". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm just going to remove that part of the sentence as confusing. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. I've struck the point above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the references at the end are out of alphabetical order. Other than that the only outstanding point is the question about why the province would be left without a functioning executive. To be honest, it's clear it was an issue from the sources, so I won't hold up GA for it, but it would be much better to explain why it's the case if that can be done so I'll hold on to see if Schwede66 can help. If not, I'll promote anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The alpha order issue has been fixed, so I'm going to promote. I would suggest clarifying the remaining issue if possible, but GA status doesn't need to wait for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]