Talk:Australian Senate committees

Australian Senate committees was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 30, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 17, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Australia: Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Senate committees is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

comments

Is it possible to get some history of committees? Is there a regular timetable of meetings - if so a timeline could be good. Diagram(s) would add to this article too. GB 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - have done a bit of history, but there is no regular timetable of meetings, they don't work that way. Diagrams are a more ambitious project that is beyond my skills for now. hamiltonstone 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggestions:

Can the list of committees be turned into a table?
convert the dot point list to prose.

This article is getting to the stage where a GA nomination would be worth while. Graeme Bartlett 06:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response and GA nom

Amendments made as suggested by Graeme, and additional material added, including more scholarly references. GA nomination initiated, and we'll see what happens. hamiltonstone 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article

This article reads well and meets all the GA criteria. My only suggestion for the future is that the lead section could be usefully expanded to two or three paragraphs. Wish you well with your editing... Johnfos 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT GOOD. It does not convey the message that most of the committees are instigated by independent and opposition senators, purely for the purpose of publicity. Abbott made such a comment in 2014. Henry Parkes (a chronic boozer by all accounts) basically copied the US constitution, but left out the bad-mouthing bits about George III and all bits about basic self-evident truths and rights. The British Colonial Office did not like those bits, and Henry was just interested in his next drink. Thus we now have effectively a bunch of Star Chambers instigated by senators that can harass citizens and there is no right of reply, nor to silence.

I added to the history section, and is was wiped within 5 mins. The Article appears to have been written by a first-year law student regurgitating the garbage it has heard in lectures. Aus is a vile wretched ignorant little sh*t hole where basic civil rights are cr*pped by the media, lawyers, politicians and civil servants.27.33.245.30 (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their views about our parliamentary system. What the article presents is an encyclopedic explanation, based on reliable secondary sources, presented in neutral language. If you can locate reliable sources to support this analysis, and there isn't undue weight placed on a minority or fringe position, then it can be added to the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Australian Senate committees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Australian Senate committees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Senate committees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2007/mr_502007.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902080730/http://www.psu.anglican.asn.au/images/uploads/CARE_LEAVERS_RESPONSE.pdf to http://www.psu.anglican.asn.au/images/uploads/CARE_LEAVERS_RESPONSE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

Australian Senate committees

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article include:

Large amounts of unsourced text and/or dead links.
The list of committees is two terms out of date.

– Steelkamp (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence under history However, the Senate had few committees, engaged in limited activities, until 1970 really needs to be expanded out to talk about what the committees actually were. I would actually like to see the history section split off into a separate page with more longer term information. Here are a few resources for expanding, understanding Senate Estimates (which may also be worth a page by itself).

Administrator (2022-11-18). "What I learned at Senate estimates • Barbara Pocock". Inside Story. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Bowrey, Graham David (2012). Senate Estimates and their contribution to Australian Commonwealth Public Sector Financial Accountability (PhD thesis). University of Wollongong.
Evans, Harry (2006-04-12). "Estimates hearings and government control of the Senate". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
EAC, Jean (2020-03-06). "So what the hell is Senate Estimates and why does it matter?". Every Australian Counts. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
"Michaelia Cash grilled about police statement in Senate estimates - ABC Radio". AM - ABC Radio. 2019-02-19. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Brandis, George (2022-11-06). "The forgotten tricyclist who left his mark on our democracy". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-03. - article discussing how estimates got started and impact.

I agree that it is not currently a GA but it could be brought up to one with some effort. Gusfriend (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.