Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eureka Stockade/archive1

Eureka Stockade

Review commentary

Left messages at Denni, Prester John, Manning Bartlett Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Australia and MilHist. Sandy (Talk) 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed, carries several {{cite needed}}, and has no inline references. Also, colour of flag is different from colour of same flag here - which is correct? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Citations needed, Wikilinking seems to need attention, References seems to contain External links and need to be written in consistent bibliographic style, short lead, NPOV tag not well explained, and image tags need attention. I converted mixed referencing styles and corrected section headings to WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content is a problem in several places. For example, "The Australian colony of Victoria, a sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers, was declared separate from New South Wales on 1 July 1851. This tranquility was irrevocably disrupted that same year with the discovery of substantial gold fields all across the colony." To describe the colony of Victoria as "a sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers" is at best simplistic; how did all of those oppressed working class "criminals" from England become farmers and graziers just a decade, was it, after the abolition of transportation? Why should the readers assume that farmers and graziers and/or sparse population was tranquil? Australia didn't exist then, so let's not trot it out again—it's already in the opening sentence of the article.
The writing is clumsy in places, for example: "and was payable whether or not any gold had actually been found."
Seriously under-referenced.

Major rewrite needed, or it's heading for the dungeon. Tony 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, most people in Victoria in 1851 were not and had never been convicts. Most were free settlers. The first settlements in what is now Victoria seem to have been made in 1834 and 1836, but I'm not sure if there were any other people in north-eastern vic at that time. Both those settlements were on the south coast. Perhaps the article could have more about population numbers or when certain towns were established and how quickly they were growing just before and just after the gold rush started.SpookyMulder 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove until neutrality tag issue fixed and references added. Buckshot06 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is under review now: if issues aren't addressed, Keep or Remove are entered after the review period, and during FARC. Sandy (Talk) 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue may have been addressed, possibly by accident: [1]. Can we somehow confirm that there is no prescribed colour for this flag, or determine that the colour used in the current image is correct? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. Neutrality dispute, mostly uncited, and it doesn't appear anyone is working on Tony's concerns. Sandy (Talk) 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article achieved featured status on 31 January 2006. Changes since are highlighted here - there have been 337 edits since. I note no citations seem to have been removed, there had been a references section. Has the standard changed over the year? I don't think the claim of seriously under referenced is deserved. I appreciate that not much use has been made of in-line citations, but the references at the end are quite adequate. Eureka, John Molony, ISBN 0-522-84962-8 [2] is by a noted Australian historian for example (even if doesn't yet have wikipedia article - see NLA manuscript collection info for potted biog ). The neutrality dispute has been resolved.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and neutrality (1d). Marskell 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove for my reasons above. Tony 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Tony. LuciferMorgan 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article has been referenced, albeit not be in-line references, but adequately in my view otherwise and the NPOV was the view of a single anonymous editor (see rant below) and has been addressed.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Seriously undercited (and Background is not an encylopedic section heading). Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace of Australian democracy

I am one of those people who subscribe to the point of view that the Eureka Stockade was not the birthplace of Australian democracy.

It makes me so angry when I hear someone say it was and all I can think about doing is hurting that person.

That's how DEEP and BITTER my opposition is!!!!!!! And yes I typed all those out one by one!

It's really disturbing to find someone filled with so much hate aint it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.150.76 (talk • contribs) \

Concerns of above anon have been addressed with several references - see footnotes 1-4. NPOV tag has been removed, in my view not merited.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, writing is not up to FA standard in addition some sections don't fit - like Peter Lalor and the film section which increase the feelings of disorganisation; MOS issues including quotes in italics, sloppy use of bullet points, over linking of date elements and no useful wikilinks in other long blocks of text; insufficient referencing. --Peta 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]