Talk:Edward Pulsford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Evident from his early attacks on restrictive immigration laws whilst financial editor of the Daily Telegraph, Pulsford fought against the policy in the state parliament and later in the Senate, where he was one of the few to oppose the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act." I can't really understand exactly what you're trying to say here. What was evident? In what way does the first part of the sentence fit with the last part?

Reworded. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial politics

"... although he withdrew an intended candidacy for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1891". If the candidacy was only "intended", i.e. he hadn't actually put his name forward, then surely there would have no need for him to withdraw?

Reworded to "an intended candidacy ... did not eventuate". Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federal politics

is it "senator" or "Senator"? The image caption says "Pulsford as a senator", but the text says "Pulsford was elected as a Senator", and "one of the few senators to oppose the White Australia policy".

My sources are leaning towards "senator"; changed. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Fusion in 1909 between the Free Trade and Protectionist parties ...". Why is "Fusion" capitalised?
Not the author, but the merger of the Free Trade and Protectionist parties was commonly called the "Fusion" - it's a proper noun. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. This is actually overdue for an article. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later life

"... planned to establish a free-trade paper to be circulated around Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in May 1914". The paper was a one-off, to be circulated in May 1914? Or his planning took place in May 1914? Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this one. The paper was to be a periodical of some description, and it was the planning that took place in 1914. Reworded. Frickeg (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review - one thing, I noticed you changed "free trade" to "free-trade" in the lead. The preference, in Australian literature at least, is overwhelmingly against the hyphen, which is considered archaic; would you be comfortable having it at the former? I suspect the linking helps differentiate it. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hyphenated "free trade" in the places you're using it as an adjective, such as in "free-trade campaigner", which I believe to be grammatically correct. If it's not hyphenated in such cases then it becomes potentially ambiguous: is it "free-trade newspaper" or "free trade-newspaper" (i.e. a trade newspaper that's free in other words) for instance. So it's not archaic. Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Although I'm certain I'm right about the hyphenation of "free-trade" in those cases where I changed it, if you're unconvinced and want to change it back that wouldn't compromise the outcome of this review. It would if it were an FAC, but not for a GAN. So far as I'm concerned there's only one issue outstanding now, my question above about the Later life section. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point here, and am actually sympathetic to it, speaking grammatically. It is the case, however, that it's extremely rare to see it hyphenated outside quotation marks in any Australian publication after about 1960 (and it was often written as one word prior to that). The protection/free trade issue was the dominant political debate in Australia from the 1880s to 1910, and the preference in the literature is overwhelmingly against hyphenation. I'm not that bothered about it, though. Frickeg (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we're done here. Congratulations! Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 16 September 2012 (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.