Talk:2008 Port Macquarie-Hastings Council dismissal/GA1

GA Review

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

I'd be happy to review for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is ok for GA, you'll need to tighten it up for further advancement.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Explore other aspects of this article such as further expanding the ramifications this issue has had on Australian politics at least at the local level.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is good enough to pass in my opinion. Further work can be done and I've outlined that above.

Regarding Lead

• "The dismissal of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council on 27 February 2008 marked the end of a series of events involving a project which was initiated in 2001 in the New South Wales coastal town of Port Macquarie to build a cultural and entertainment centre, known to locals as the Glasshouse.[1] The project, initially a joint venture with the management of the neighbouring shopping centre, Port Central, was initially expected to cost the council AUD$7.3 million, but by late 2007, despite the centre not yet having opened, the costs had blown out to over $41.7 million, with interest repayments likely to extend the council's liability to $66 million." This is two looong run on sentences. Please consider breaking up. H1nkles (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The outgoing Mayor, Rob Drew, was critical of the process throughout, maintaining that errors had been made and misinformation had been accepted as fact; however, the New South Wales Urban Task Force, a property development lobby group, believed the sacking served as a warning to other councils to stick to "core responsibilities"." You didn't say he was fired until the end of the sentence, you just indicate he was "outgoing" which could mean he was voted out of office or resigned. Please clarify.
• The lead could be expanded, for an article of this length another paragraph is warranted. Discuss some of the background and any further fall out from this debacle. H1nkles (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

• What does this mean, "and a convict-era drain in remarkably good condition was discovered by archaelogists and needed to be preserved"? What is a convict-era drain?

Have attempted to clarify this - "and a drain built by convicts in the 19th century and still in remarkably good condition" Orderinchaos 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Payne report

• This quote, "'The report has said categorically that council has lied to the community about the cost of the arts centre at every opportunity it's had and it's put a gloss or a spin on it'." There should be a "the" between "that" and "council", does the article have a "the" in it and you just left it out? If not then a (the) should be put in there.
• Quote, "Local Independent MP Rob Oakeshott said, however, that the council should instead address the findings of the report, and stop arguing about the facts or using emotional arguments in support of it." Is this a direct quote of Oakeshott or a paraphrase? It isn't clear. H1nkles (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 - fixed.

Point 2 - was a paraphrase of the source at [1] Orderinchaos 12:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Willan inquiry

• Quote, "The report contained a number of critical findings, chief of which was that the council and councillors had not been rigorous in seeking accurate information about the project, had been swayed by developers and supporters, had failed to plan and manage the project and had lost control of the "uncontrollably escalating" cost, and the result was adversely impacting on works and services in other areas of the Council's operation." This is a long run on sentence, please break up. H1nkles (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Orderinchaos 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Sacking and aftermath

• I added a to the end of this section. You should add a cite for this.
  • Done (the original version of the Port Macquarie News article did not contain the para with this info, but they seem to have added it since.) Orderinchaos 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I added words at end to note that one dismissed councillor was re-elected in 2012 -- "Former State member for Port Macquarie, Peter Besseling, was elected Mayor and Lisa Intemann, the only member of the dismissed council to contest the 2012 election, was re-elected as Councillor". This info is available from the same references. Michael Soames (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE - Garry Payne left in 2010 and was replaced by former Council staffer Neil Porter. Michael Soames (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall review

• Overall the article is really close. You're comprehensive in your coverage of the subject.
• The photo is good.
• The writing is a little rough, some grammatical and prose issues, which I've outlined above.
• Please also go through the article and make sure your spelling is all consistent. I found a couple of spots where spelling switched between American English and British English (example: favour vs. favor).
• References are good, links are intact.
• I'd pass it straight away except for the citation needed and some prose issues. I'll hold it for a week. Clean those up and I'll be happy to pass it. H1nkles (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thorough review - I'll get onto all these issues in the next couple of days. Orderinchaos 17:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are we at with the fixes on this article? I notice some comments on March 6. Are we at the point of further review? Have all my previous issues been addressed? H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article once again, the lead has been expanded, ciations addressed the rest of my issues seem to be fixed. I will pass the article. Please see my comments above re: prose and expansion. Further work can be done but in my opinion the article has met the GA criteria. H1nkles (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)