Jump to content

Talk:Australia and the American Civil War/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

  • Comment: An interesting topic, but the article is meagre.
  • Expand the lead.
  • Expand the aftermath section.
  • Further issues will follow.
Lead is still to short. Read WP:Lead and try afterwards to summarize the article. Currently, large section of the article aren't covered in the lead. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford, recently I summarized the ACW article I started (which I hope I did correctly) Conclusion of the American Civil War which may give you some ideas. If you see any corrections on that expansion, please let me know. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion of the ACW is OK. The content is well summarized, but in this article you still have to expand the lead. The whole story of the confederate warship is mssing. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did more expanding of the intro.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some changes and think it's OK now. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • 1. "Together, Australia and New Zealand had 140 citizens who were veterans of the American Civil War, with almost 100 being born in the two countries" is ambigous. In which two countries?
  • Wording now is: Together, Australia and New Zealand had 140 citizens, 100 of which were native-born, who were veterans of the American Civil War. The reference shows exactly who they were.
  • 2. "Some of these were originally Americans who came to Australia during Australia's gold rush" There were many goldrushes in Australia. Please date during what time these people came and state how many and whether they came from the Union or the Confederation.
New wording now: Some of these were originally Americans who came to Australia during the Victorian gold rush of the 1850s. (reference below in 3)
  • 3. "Officers during the war included one who gave Tasmania its first telegraph service, and another officer who mined for gold in Ballarat." Were they Australian officers? If not, say two former officers as long as they didn't serve in that capacity in Australia. You should at least name the guy with the telegraphlines, even if he has no article. Very good, would be if you named both officers and stated in what faction they served.
  • The reference for #2 & #3 says: With the advent of gold discoveries in Australia during the 1850's after the California gold rush of 1849 there were also immigrants from the United States who later returned to the U.S. in time for the Civil War. One Civil War officer was responsible for the first telegraphic system in Tasmania during the 1850's; another future Civil War officer was in the Ballarat goldfields during the late 1850's. It appears to me they were United States officers, however no indication of which side they were on or who they were exactly.
  • 4. "Another immigration quirk that was caused by the war was Australia fighting with Canada and New Zealand over increased Irish immigration, as many of the Irish decided against emigrating to the warring nations of North America" Doesn't make sense. So there were more Irish immigrants, why the heck did they then start fighting for an increasing resource? You have to point out that it boosted the economy and more labour was needed for the cotton fields, but that still doesn't make sense for Canada. Basically you present the reader with an enigma and you don't even explain how they fought. Did the royal Canadian mounted police attack the diggers or did the Australians lower the prices for transports to the other end of the world?
New wording now: Another impact was the competition with Canada that Australia and New Zealand had with Irish immigration. The increasing Irish immigration was seen as an economic boon by these down under countries. One of the reasons for the increase was due to many Irish deciding against emigrating to the warring nations of North America.

5. I worked through the article. The only remaining problem aside from the above is that you don't mention the sorrowful demonstrations after Lincoln's assasination in the article. per WP:Lead the lead should summarize the article content. In order to justify mentioning it in the lead you have to write a section in the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Issues 1 to 5 aren't solved. Issue 5 absolutely needs expansion if it merits mention in the lead. Try to reflect the public reaction in the Australian newspapers (some Australian editors can help you on this). Wandalstouring (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Thanks for pointing out these corrections that needed to be done. I believe they have been dealt with including the appropriate references. If there is any further items that need expansion, please point them out and we will go to work to fix them. --Doug Coldwell talk 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One reference is missing and footnote 8 needs a date of retrieval and an argument why it's a reliable source. The article could be improved by a copyedit, however, I don't make that a passing argument for GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over all the footnotes and I think all have a reference below in the Bibliography. Which one do you see missing? I'll go get!
Added inline citation to first paragraph of "Imperial Russian Navy". Footnote at the bottom has several sources. Will those work?
I know a good proofreader. I'll contact him for additional eyes for copyediting and proofreading.
 Done Dealt with issues. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I haven't abandoned it; Doug has just been beating me to everything. Thanks Doug.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Just wanted to see this finished up to GA status. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All issues have been addressed. Will make it GA tomorrow. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • References needed:
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_and_the_American_Civil_War/GA1&oldid=1136538737"