Talk:Royalties for Regions
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Moondyne in topic Criticisms section
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Criticisms section
editFirst - a worthwhile article and good job too. Only thing I'm not sure about is the last sentence of Criticisms section. As I understand it, Grylls has made the Royalties for Regions policy the central plank of negotiations with both Labor and the Liberals. The criticisms of Grylls/Nationals re: potentally aligning with Labor are for just that (ie aligning with the 'old enemy' etc) and are therefore not so much criticisms of the actual policy itself. GlenDillon 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fair point. But I do think it needs to be said that a potential alliance with Labor is being widely commented upon and that the policy is pivotal (raison d'etre) in those discussion. I added a bit. Feel free to tweak at will. Moondyne 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit on 'criticisms' was fine. I changed the Sect header to "respsonses" to allow for both positive and negative responses as time goes on. Added the Treasury doc as a reference & added the extra minor bits on the policy itself. Had to learn the syntax for the citations template on the fly and got pretty tangled up editing off line - hopefully I've sussed it ok. Changed the Bn to billion though I'll revert if necessary. Wasn't sure so took my lead from a quick survey of a couple of other Aust. economics articles.GlenDillon 06:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Thanks. Moondyne 07:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit on 'criticisms' was fine. I changed the Sect header to "respsonses" to allow for both positive and negative responses as time goes on. Added the Treasury doc as a reference & added the extra minor bits on the policy itself. Had to learn the syntax for the citations template on the fly and got pretty tangled up editing off line - hopefully I've sussed it ok. Changed the Bn to billion though I'll revert if necessary. Wasn't sure so took my lead from a quick survey of a couple of other Aust. economics articles.GlenDillon 06:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)