Jump to content

Talk:Jack Critchley

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Critchley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Critchley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) 22:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this on. It's fantastic, as always, but a few comments nonetheless:

1. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar. Check for coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections, appropriate use of wikilinks, and other aspects of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria. After you have read the article, check that the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic.

  • I don't really follow the logic of the first paragraph: it jumps into his war service and his union work and then circles back into his upbringing.
Fair enough, I've just kept a short "notability para" first, then handled the rest chronologically. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was heavily involved in the local community, serving on the town council for two terms – 1923–1924 and 1928–1929, on the board of the local hospital and the committee of the local sub-branch of the Returned Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Imperial League of Australia, and was a justice of the peace" is a long run-on sentence.
I've broken this up, and added additional detail on some of the matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the "Federal politics" section is a bit clunky - it jumps around on time and issues in a way that's a bit confusing. I'm not sure what "war gratuity" is in this context, but perhaps a paragraph break after there would help?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long periods of absence from the Senate in his latter years resulted in his resignation as opposition whip in September 1957, he did not contest the 1958 Australian federal election,[1] and was replaced in the first position on the ALP ticket by Jim Toohey, who was elected.[14]". This is a bit of a run-on sentence that covers a lot of ground and (as also covered below) it doesn't really explain what was going on with his apparently declining health.
Not sure what I can do with this, there isn't anything I can find in Hansard or Trove about what was actually wrong with him (or even what he died of). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations (typically using footnotes) for the six types of material named in the GA criteria.[5] The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution, and it should not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research. Perfectly formatted citations are not required. Read the detailed guidance at WP:DEADREF before addressing any non-functional URLs.

  • This is generally good, but the substance of the article seems to be very heavily reliant on the Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate. Although it's of excellent quality, I'm generally wary about relying on it too heavily, because it's ultimately trying to do the same thing as we are in a fairly similar level of detail and length, and this means that using it as the main source for an article almost inherently comes with close paraphrasing concerns. I'm not sure I'm qualified to determine how much is too much, but it's a situation I'd personally be trying to avoid. (If I'm personally writing an article on a Senator, I'll generally go to it last for things not mentioned in other sources for this reason.) That Trove covers all but the last two years of his Senate career and his death should mean there are fairly easily accessible alternatives that would make it less reliant on that one source and can flesh out the article as needed.
I've given this a good crack. While there are still a dozen footnotes to it, they are for pretty minor matters. The only bit I'd still like to substitute other sources for is the para that starts off with "Critchley was sensitive", as I need to go into the SLSA and look at the SAPD volumes, AFAIK they are not available online. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.

  • I don't think the explanations of how he was elected to the Senate each time are very helpful. The nature of Senate voting (both under our current rules and those in place during his Senate career) is that one's personal vote is extremely rarely relevant, and that as a major party candidate under that system of Senate voting you're either preselected in a safe spot, a marginal spot, or an unwinnable spot. (For example, as top candidate on the Labor ticket in 1953, Critchley was essentially guaranteed to be elected first or second short of some unprecedented historical catastrophe that destroyed the party.) It doesn't appear that Critchley was ever preselected in a position on the ticket where he could possibly lose, especially in that era, so the exact numbers/exact final position in which he was elected is getting into the weeds of electoral wonk stuff.
Fair enough, I was unsure of how much detail to put in, and your points are excellent. I've trimmed it. I think his ticket position is useful, as it communicates a bit of how he stood in the party at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything else that could be said about his attitudes towards the 1955 Labor split? Him being asked to serve as DLP Senate leader and declining suggests that there might well be some interesting stuff that could be said about his opinions on the affair (and Catholic-Communist tensions) beyond just mentioning it as an anecdote. Trove is probably still helpful there as the end of 1955 tends to be where most of its coverage cuts out.
This is from the granddaughter, it might be a bit self-serving, but I can't find anything that corroborates it. I could take it out, but I don't think it is that egregious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stuff about his health at the end of his career seems to be a bit scattered - it's first mentioned in passing in the context of his attending the chamber for key votes without really explaining what was going on, then the next paragraph goes back to his ideology, then to his absences and resignation.
Yes, a bit of that was really legacy, moved it down. Hopefully clearer and more logical now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. The article should be written from the neutral point of view: this viewpoint strives to represent all other views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them.

No concerns here.

5. The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here.

No concerns here.

6. The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales.

  • I am unsure whether the lead image is in fact usable - being from 1950, it falls into that very irritating grey area where it's out of copyright here but possibly not out of copyright in the US. (Adding to the confusion, English Wikipedia and Commons in fact have completely different PD-Australia templates on this point.) This is absolutely not an area I've got any expertise in, but according to the English Wikipedia template, as an image taken after 1 January 1946, it is not in the public domain in the US.
I've replaced it with the PD one from his stint in state parliament for now. I will contact the Senate people about the copyright on the other one, as they seem free to use it on their bio page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. The article is free of obvious copyright violations. Reviewers can use several tools, as well as Google searches, to help establish whether material has been plagiarised or cut-and-paste from some of the electronic sources used; but this is not a trivial undertaking.

Thanks so much, TDW, I will get right onto those things. Not having developed an article on a senator before, I was unsure of how much detail to get into on the election stuff, but on reflection agree it is overly wonky and probably not very useful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G'day The Drover's Wife, I reckon I might have addressed your comments. See what you think? Thanks again for taking a look, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife:, I reckon I might be done. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hold things up, I've been busy IRL and haven't been on Wikipedia long enough for anything thorough. I'll try and go through it in the next couple of days, though I don't doubt it'll be excellent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife, @Peacemaker67, any update here? It's been a month and a half. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed everything that was raised, just waiting on TDW to find some time to check it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day The Drover's Wife, any remaining issues? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed

[edit]

The Drover's Wife has not edited on Wikipedia for nearly three months. I am requesting a second opinion in the hopes that a new reviewer will be attracted to this nomination and complete the current review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take over. Steelkamp (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steelkamp, greatly appreciated! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

[edit]

Well written

[edit]
Absolutely, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • when Critchley was evacuated to hospital sick. This sentence is strange.
Deleted "sick". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that previous sentence reads fine to me. Don't know why I couldn't understand it yesterday. Anyway, the new sentence is more concise so it is better. Steelkamp (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • hospital ship Port Lyttleton on 19 October. Could change this to hospital ship Port Lyttleton on 19 October 1917. as the new year is not mention up to that point.
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the second position on the ALP senate ticket. Ticket (election) could be linked here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critchley was an ALP candidate for the Australian Senate in the 1946 Australian federal election, in the second position on the ALP senate ticket after Fred Beerworth. Critchley's six-year senate term commenced on 1 July 1947. This from saying he was a senate candidate to saying his senate term is commencing, with no explicit statement that he was successfully elected.
Added ", and was duly elected." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

[edit]
  • a position he retained until September 1957. The reference doesn't seem to state the specific month, only that he "retained the position for more than seven years". You could use reference 2 instead.
Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

[edit]

Neutral

[edit]

Stable

[edit]

Illustrated, if possible

[edit]
  • Optional: I recommend adding alt text to the images.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, thanks Steelkamp. Really appreciate you taking this on. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]

That's it. Putting review on hold. Steelkamp (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the review now. Steelkamp (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Peacemaker67 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jack Critchley; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Peacemaker67: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Critchley&oldid=1253788154"