Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Robert Garran

Robert Garran

Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. There's also a regular peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Garran/archive1, I hope it's not a problem submitting this in two places, I'm just hoping for plenty of comments. --bainer (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: this is an old peer review, I ran out of time to implement the suggestions that arose last time before I went away on holiday over the New Year period, but I've come back to them now. I've relisted this peer review to hopefully get some more comments. --bainer (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll try to re-review it tomorrow!--Yannismarou 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• I do not like some prose stuff in the lead. First sentence: "Robert Randolph Garran (10 February 1867 – 11 January 1957), Australian lawyer, was an early leading expert in Australian constitutional law, the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia." I would rephrase "Robert Randolph Garran (10 February 1867 – 11 January 1957) was an Australian lawyer and an early leading expert in Australian constitutional law, the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia." Then:"Garran was also an important figure in the development of the city of Canberra, organising the creation of the Canberra University College and later contributing to the establishment of the Australian National University, and founding several important cultural associations in the new city." This second end extends a sentence which should have ended. According to my IMO, I think you should split the sentence.

• I agree, I've shuffled the sentences around.

• "Garran, like his father, was strongly involved in the Federation movement." You could explain us in a few words what is this movement.

• I've included a brief description, and the term "Australian Federation movement" is linked to a page discussing it fully.

• Too many read links. Officially this is not an obstacle for FA status, but it would be nice if you could reduce them, creating some stubs.
• "Garran and his fellow staff aimed for a simple style of legislative drafting, a goal enabled by the fact that there was of course no pre-existing federal legislation on which their work would have to be based." I think we do not need "of course" here.

• It does read better without that clause.

• "Garran "consistently advocated the establishment of what he prophetically called 'a National University at Canberra'"" Who's the quote? Since you use quotation marks, I think you should mention the name of the person saying that in the text. Otherwise, recast into alternative language.

• The whole sentence was cited, but only the first part of it was a direct quote, the remainder was paraphrased. I've added a comma following the direct quote and repeated the citation to make this clear.

• "This vision was evidently influential on the establishment of the Australian National University (ANU) in 1946, the only research-only university in the country (although in 1960 it amalgamated with the University College to offer undergraduate courses)." I would like a citation here.

• Done.

• Try not to have inline citations in the middle of the sentences, unless it is absolutely necessary.

• Apart from a few citations following direct quotes (see two points above), the only citations in the middle of sentences are details of books that are mentioned in the prose. It would be misleading to offer the citation at the end of the sentence as it would imply attribution to that source.

• Garran's "personality, like his prose, was devoid of pedantry and pomposity and, though dignified, was laced with a quizzical turn of humour." Again, who says that? The same problem with the next sentence: "His death "marked the end of a generation of public men for whom the cultural and the political were natural extensions of each other and who had the skills and talents to make such connections effortlessly.""

• The quotes are cited, did you want me to name the source?

• The last quote of "Legacy" is Garran's. What has to do this quote with his legacy? Maybe you should place it in the sections you discuss his work for the Federation and the Constitution

• It's his answer to the question 'has federation turned out as you expected?' posed to him near the end of his career. I think it nicely illustrates his own view of the things he gave his career to and is appropriate for that section.

• Your printed sources have no pages (except for the articles). I'm afraid this is a problem for FAC. You should rewrite your citations, by adding specific pages..

• I've done this for the book that's referenced the most. The first source is a specialist encyclopaedia entry, and it's all on the one double page IIRC, so I doubt it's necessary to split that one up into individual citations.

• Unfortunately with the business of the Christmas period I've run out of time to implement these suggestions before I leave for my holiday tomorrow, but I'll definitely do so when I come back. --bainer (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, now that it's definitely no longer Christmas, I've come back to take a look at these. My responses are in blue. --bainer (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments

• "Garran graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with first-class honours in 1888, winning the University's Medal in Philosophy, and a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1889." I would cite that.

• That was from the same source as the preceding sentence, I've clarified that by adding another footnote.

• You have some red links. Though red links are not an obstacle for FA status, some reviewers do not like it, and you might lose some supports. Maybe, you could stub some of them.

• I'll do so if serious objection arises. I would prefer to do the articles properly when I have the time.

• "In June 1893 ... the following five years." This paragraph has no citations.

• I've remedied that. I've also mentioned the Bathurst conference alongside the Corowa one.

• "The creation of the office and Garran's appointment to it was to some degree recognition of his existing role". IMO this assertion should be sourced.

• I've done so, and clarified the point by rewording it and bringing in material from another source.

• As far as the prose is concerned, I am not the best judge, since I am not a native English speacker, but I don't see any major flaw. Maybe, in some cases it could be further improved ("The family lived in Phillip Street in central Sydney. Garran's mother "had a deep distrust, well justified in those days, of milkman's milk" and so the family kept a cow in the backyard, which would walk on its own to The Domain each day to graze and return twice a day to be milked.[2] The family later lived in the suburb of Darlinghurst, just to the east of the centre city.), but, again, not any huge prose flaws I think.

• Hmm, a failure to read that sentence out loud on my part :) I've substituted alternative words for those cases.

In general, the article is very nice - some thinks I do not like very much are probably just personal preferences (such as the long quotes in "Legacy", which are long and IMO interrrupt the flow of the prose) - and I think I would support it in FAC. But, if you don't feel sure about it, you can go first to GAC - it is another way to get feedback.--Yannismarou 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, responses in blue. --bainer (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this could go to FAC as it is - it's an excellent article. Rebecca 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)