Wikipedia:Peer review/Bruce by-election, April 1865/archive1

Bruce by-election, April 1865 edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to get this article to GA in a few weeks and I would like to receive advice. J 947 20:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Hey J, I will give it a go:

~~Made a few corrections from the suggestions on automated peer review. And fixed the missing title error message by splitting the ref into two~~

~~Consider converting {{sfn}} tags to <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> tags. Their functionality is identical but having the ref bare allows easier VisualEditor editing.~~

~~Other minor edits here and here~~

Lead

Needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Consider separating the three sentences into three paragraphs and expanding each one. But this can wait till we finish this review if you like.

Consider linking "multi-member" to Voting system or one its sub-pages. For non-New Zealanders like me it is not obvious

Consider separating the link "New Zealand by-election" into New Zealand and List of New Zealand by-elections like this: New Zealand by-election. That way there is at least one link to New Zealand in the article. You need one besides the tiny flag link.

Background

~~"...in the Domett Ministry in August 1862 and then the Whitaker–Fox Ministry (October 1863 – November 1864)~~ I miss understood. It's fine.

add |via=Paper Past where ever used.

"Gillies first mentioned resigning in public on 6 January 1865; however, it did not take effect until 3 March of that year." maybe I am not sure but there is something wrong with that sentence.

See edits here, here, here and here. Undo if undesired.

"The day prior to the nomination meeting, still no candidate had come forward, but Frederick Moss was discussed as a suitable representative who had declined becoming a candidate due to private engagements." This sentence is kind of a mess. You should split it in half:

"Actually, no candidate had come forward as of the day before the nomination meeting." or even better "...until the day of the nomination meeting." You could cite The Bruce Herald 6 APRIL 1865 which is in the next paragraph also here.

~~"Frederick Moss was discussed as a suitable representative but declined the honor due to private engagements."~~

That's it for today. If you like, I will return for part 2, 3, and 4 in a couple of days.

@Janweh64: links to New Zealand are discouraged as per WP:OVERLINK. Thanks for the advice! J 947 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 'via' parameter on all of them. Wasn't aware of it. J 947 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: I just corrected the link to the template for references. I believe it is the output from harvnb you like. The good thing about these ones instead of {{sfn}} is that you can name them like this <ref name="Wilson189">{{harvnb|Wilson|1985|p=189}}</ref> and use them again. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the lead, planning to do more later. J 947 18:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: Would you like me to continue? Or wait? Or allow another editor to step in?

@Janweh64: Not right now; I haven't done all points. I'll cross out the points I've done. J 947 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janweh64: All points addressed; you can move on now. J 947 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination meeting

following it being reported by the Otago Daily Times >> following the report by the Otago Daily Times Half done
had called for that date >> had selected that date Done
the nomination place, this being the first election >> the nomination place and this was the first election Half done
than Arthur John Burns, who he announced as his nomination. >> ...announced as his candidate. Note:Nomination is the action. The person is a candidate. Half done
The last paragraph: see this edit. Y

I will back again. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: Per WP:LASTNAME, after the first mention J. L. Gillies and W. J. Dyer should be referred to as Gillies and Dyer. I know there is a second Gillies but he is only mentioned once and only in a later section with Thomas added. So there is little risk of confusion.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half done. The first Gillies' is mentioned at the top, background, and aftermath sections. I did it for Dyer. J 947 19:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janweh64: You haven't edited this page for over a week. I would like it if you could continue on. J 947 08:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947:I will do some now.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J 947 08:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaches

the act of having different countries for the North and South Islands >> sounds strange, perhaps:

he was against separationism, dividing the North and South Islands Done

Show of hands

show of hands is too small for a separate section combine it into a section "Speeches and show of hands." Not done Isn't actually a section; there is not much size difference between the two anyway. J 947 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is the reason for the show hands. The article makes it sound like it accomplished nothing. Obviously it had a purpose but that needs to be explained.

~~Public meeting~~

~~This sentence needs to be broken down into two or three sentences. It is too long:~~

While he addressed the electors, Adam said that he was quite glad to see a large number of electors at the meeting, as it was his opinion that it was beneficial to both the electors and their members who were not allowed to vote because they were either women, Māori, or did not own land to have a meeting concerning political topics and that it would not cause any harm.

I fail to see what if anything the Public meeting section has to do with the by-election. Perhaps try to describe the outcome of the meeting or Dyer and Gillies' contribution to the meeting to make that clear. Section removed. J 947 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The next big issue to address is WP:OVERCITE and especially WP:REPCITE. You do not have to cite every single line. I have noticed you combine sentences to make this possible, that is not necessary. If the reference for a whole paragraph is a single source, just cite that source once at the very end of the paragraph. You have reliable sources just trust them.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shudde edit

Hi. I'll try and give some comments generally.

Regarding the lead, I think that rather than linking to Electoral system (which is piped as "multi-member") and having a note you should just explain explicitly what it means in the context of the Bruce electorate at this time. It's just a bit confusing at the moment, even with the note (are both members elected at the same time?). I went to Electoral system and couldn't quickly see a definition of "multi-member", although I assume it's the same as multiple-winner systems. Half done Haven't eliminated the note, but re-linked electoral system. It is the same. J 947 05:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note a isn't referenced. Done with two references. J 947 05:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Five candidates were nominated but two of them, both who had nominated other electors earlier in the meeting, were disallowed by the Returning Officer stating that it was childish for the electors to behave like this on what he thought was a "serious duty". Also one of them, Henry Clapcott, withdrew prior to the election. -- I think this could be more clearly written. How about "Five candidates were nominated but two of them had their nominations rejected by the Returning Officer. Both rejected nominees had nominated other electors earlier in the meeting; the Returning Officer believed this behaviour was childish and contrary to the "serious duty" of candidacy. A third nominee, Henry Clapcott, withdrew prior to the election." Done. J 947 05:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The by-election was one of three by-elections in the electorate that was also in the 3rd Parliament. -- This is a little unclear to me, and could probably be expanded. Done. Expanded. J 947 05:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I think the lead could be expanded somewhat. Doing.... J 947 05:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

In general I believe that a reader should not have to read the lead in order to read and understand the whole article. So just bear that in mind when reading some of my comments!
"Gillies" -- Give the full name in the first mention outside the lead.
I would probably expand the first sentence just a little to give the reader more background. For example "Thomas Gillies was a cabinet minister in the Domett Ministry (August 1862) and then the Whitaker–Fox Ministry (October 1863 – November 1864), and had served as a Member of Parliament for Bruce – a rural Otago electorate – since 1861." or something along those lines. Stating he is an MP, and from one electorate is vital.
Gillies first talked about having resigned on 6 January 1865 and the resignation eventually took effect on 3 March that year. -- do you mean here that he first mentioned the possibility? But that he did not officially do so until 3 March? Or did he submit a resignation earlier but it did not take effect till 3 March?
Let's try and avoid one sentence paragraphs.
were sorry to see Gillies retire because of "some infatuated idea in regard to separation". -- a ref should be added directly after the quote.

Run up to the election

I don't think it's a problem, however I'd get in the habit of separating sources as much as possible as per WP:INTEGRITY. Just helps to verify any claims.

Nomination meeting

Link "Milton" Y Already linked. J 947 23:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
which in those days was called Tokomairiro or Tokomairaro -- do you mean the town or the court house here? Town, looking to clarify that. J 947 23:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was following a report by the Otago Daily Times on 23 March 1865 that the Returning Officer had selected that date. -- This was mentioned in the previous section and can probably be removed.
Up until approximately two years before the by-election, the Court House in Dunedin was the nomination place with this therefore being the first election in Bruce with the nominations held in Tokomairiro. -- prose, how about "Up until two years previously, the Court House in Dunedin [link this] hosted the nomination meeting, and this was the first Bruce election with the nominations held in Tokomairiro." -- This is actually not clear and I'm not going to check the sources, but were nominations held anywhere else prior (other than Dunedin)? What happened two years prior?
"writ" has already been linked. Y Did a quick check earlier with AWB. J 947 23:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"John Hardy" -- who is this?
He then announced his nomination of Henry Clapcott, a person who he thought would be a suitable representative for the electorate and was at the time the Treasurer of the Otago Province. -- how about "He then announced his nomination of Henry Clapcott, Treasurer of Otago Province at the time, as a person who he thought would be a suitable representative for the electorate."
"leave an ineffective executive behind" -- do you mean leave an ineffective executive in Otago behind?
Before he announced his nomination, John Lillie Gillies signalled that he was about to propose someone who was well known among those who lived in the electorate. After a speech, Gillies announced his nomination and stated that he was sure that the electors could not find a more honest candidate than Arthur John Burns, who he then announced as the candidate he would like to propose. -- this is quite wordy and I believe it could be a little bit more concise.
"Member of Parliament" -- this really should have been mentioned and linked earlier in the article.
Hardy said that in reply to some observations by J. L. Gillies regarding the state of the province of Otago without a treasurer—because Clapcott would be forced to resign as Treasurer to take up his role as MP for Bruce—he would then also like to nominate Marryatt, who was himself an elector for the by-election. -- this is another statement that is just a little bit too long and difficult to parse. Could probably be broken down into a couple of sentences to make it easier to read.

Speeches

During his speech, Dyer explained that he was a separationist, though not to the extremes as some of the Separation League, a supporter of the elimination of the House of Representatives, and could see no reason why the Chinese could not come to New Zealand like any other people. -- again maybe just a little tweak to "During his speech Dyer explained that he was a separatist, although not to the extreme of the Separation League, supported the elimination of the House of Representatives, and could see no reason why the Chinese could not come to New Zealand like any other people."
Is "separationism" being used where "separatism" should be used, or is "separationism" acceptable? I have no idea myself.
the act of having different countries for the North and South Islands you've included a definition of separationism after it's first use. I'd recommend defining the term clearly in first use, rather than later in the article.

Show of hands

I would recommend merging this section with that on speeches. Not done Isn't actually a section; there is not much size difference between the two anyway. J 947 23:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public meeting

and that it would not cause any harm -- what "it" is is a little unclear here.
A subject of discussion presented to the electors was of what was termed "the arbitrary division of road districts" [in Tokomairiro]. -- maybe "The subject of what was termed "the arbitrary division of road districts" [in Tokomairiro] was presented for discussion."
Who is James Adam?
Adam was said to have thought that the division of road districts was --> "Adam believed that the division of road districts was"

Candidates

I really think this section could be delisted and just transformed into prose. Especially as all three candidates are independent.
Clapcott was the Treasurer of the Otago Province, which drew problems as the province would be left without a functioning executive, as the Superintendent and Speaker were already members of parliament.[6] On 5 April 1865 it was announced by the Otago Daily Times that Clapcott had withdrew his candidacy for the seat. --> "Clapcott was the Treasurer of the Otago Province, which created problems as the province would be left without a functioning executive if he was elected, as the Superintendent and Speaker were already members of parliament.] On 5 April 1865 it was reported that Clapcott had withdrawn his candidacy."

Election

"The election was held on 8 April 1865." -- Do we need four refs here?
Clapcott placed an advertisement on 5 April in the Otago Daily Times stating that he had withdrawn from the contest for the seat. -- this was mentioned in the previous section.
The results were not probable to be announced before the afternoon of 11 April 1865. The results were announced on 12 April 1865. --> "It was not possible to announce the results before the afternoon of 11 April 1865, and they were announced on the 12 April."

Results by polling booth

increase by five --> "increase of five"
The polling booths that remained the same than as -- unnecessary "than"
Is anything mentioned in any of the sources about the distribution of votes over the difference booths. Particularly East Taieri?

Aftermath

I would remove subsections within this one. Only five sentences in three sections.
The next election in the electorate was not concerning Burns -- You mean did not involve him?

General comments

I would add a description of the men themselves to the appropriate image captions
I would add some information on what qualifies as an "elector" earlier in the article rather than near the end.
I think something needs to be added explaining what a multi-member electorate is and how it's relevant to this by-election
I have not checked the references or the images -- I'll leave that to someone else
More information on the Separation League -- which is clearly important in this by-election would probably be quite helpful.
I really do think the lead should be expanded.

I hope my comments are helpful. The article is probably pretty close to be GA quality; for me some of the prose could be cleaned up -- which is my main piece of advice. I think the topic is quite interesting (I didn't know that North-South separatism was so important, although I did know about provincialism etc) and certainly pretty comprehensive. Good luck for improving the article and I'm sure it will pass GAN if my comments are addressed. Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 10:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]