Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Denny (Australian politician)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata comments
edit[Support. All my comments below have been addressed. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive in that it outlines some of Denny's major policy initiatives. The only hesitation on my part is whether the prose amounts to "engaging". At times the article is a fairly bare chronology. But ultimately I don't think the prose is any less engaging than in a number of FAs I've recently seen promoted. And hopefully it will benefit from one or two other commenters dropping by and picking up prose matters to be further improved. So I'm happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)][reply]
My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:
- The lead suggests that the whole of his parliamentary career was as a ULP/ALP member, which doesn't seem to be correct. He seems to have also had stints as an independent and PLP member.
- "He was again Attorney-General in the Labor governments led by John Gunn (1924–26) and Lionel Hill (1930–33)" - Missing Robert Richards.
- There seems to be conflict between the ADB and the 1919 Sunday Times article about when he started to work for the newspaper. The former says 1896; the latter says 1893. Any reason why the former is preferred?
- No, hadn't realised the clash. Have mentioned both now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "When a by-election was held for West Adelaide on 17 March 1900..." - I think this sentence tries to do too much. Split?
- Good idea. Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the 1902 state election the electoral district of West Adelaide was abolished" - do you abolish a seat in an election?
- "In 1903, he began studying law at the University of Adelaide, and was defeated at the 1905 state election, gaining only 9.9 per cent of the votes" - the and implies a relationship between the two clauses of the sentence, but there is none. Perhaps take the law studies and the 1908 admission out of where they are and put them as a separate sentence, admittedly out of chronological order, at the end of the paragraph? As it is, it gets in the way of the political stuff.
- Is there any story behind why he started as a ULP candidate, then became an independent, and then rejoined the ULP?
- Not that I'm aware of, but I've included a mention of where Howell observes he "abandoned" his former liberalism. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Australian Government" - as an Oz lawyer, I prefer "Commonwealth Government" but happy if you ignore this.
- "These included the Advances for Homes Act 1910, and in his speeches he highlighted that many workers were faced with high rents and poor conditions. It allowed for 80 per cent of the value of a property to be advanced to a worker at 4.5 per cent interest over 36.5 years" - These two sentences seem out of order. Shouldn't we understand what the Act did before learning about what Denny said in his speeches?
- "long, spindly legs" - who said this? There are two footnotes so the reader really has no idea.
- Lincoln. I've moved the citation to the quote. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need a geographical location for the wounding in the body of the article, not just the lead. In the body, Egypt is the last location mentioned, which confuses the reader because, of course, it happened in France.
- "He was subsequently invested with the Military Cross" - this is a long sentence and starts in the passive voice, so is quite difficult to digest.
- Split sentence, removed "subsequently". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "with a similar proportion of the vote" - "similar proportions"?
- "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes." - this seems to be a very significant period in Denny's career; I think we need to know what these legislative changes were. It makes the next para, which talks about opening war memorials, seem trivial.
- Working on this, have included the electoral reforms, more to do here. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "address was punctuated with applause" - it would be good to know who said this without needing to follow the footnote. Although... is this sentence needed at all? It is just about one memorial.
- I think it goes to how he was a rare beast, being a returned Labor pollie. The quote is from Inglis et al, but I don't see the need to attribute inline. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any explanation for his unusually strong performance at the 1930 election?
- Not that I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Appointed Attorney-General for the third time in the Labor government of Lionel Hill" - this doesn't seem right; the reader initially thinks it was his third stint as A-G in the Hill government.
"Lang Labor Party" - I'd suggest just "Lang Labor" as there was no such thing as the "Lang Labor Party".- Any explanation for why he lost his seat in 1933, after such a long run of electoral success? Again, this seems to be one of those significant career moments that would warrant more detail.
- I think we've addressed that below? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Denny wrote a further autobiographical book, A Digger at Home and Abroad which was published in 1941" - missing the close to a set of parenthetical commas? [I'd change it myself but I wasn't completely sure]
- "Mr. Ephriam "Brownie" Tripp" - any reason why he gets a "Mr."?
- Nup. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice ending to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and comments. This is my first FAC on a politician, I'm mainly a Milhist guy, so bear with me. I'll start working though your comments and raise any queries as I go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Two quibbles with the above: there absolutely was a (formal) Lang Labor Party in South Australia, and they swept out all the incumbents in Denny's three-member seat in 1933, which is why that sentence says as much as can be said. I felt that the reason Denny lost in 1933 was implied there - the PLP was obliterated and nearly all its members were defeated - but that's one point that could probably be fixed by making it explicit in one sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Lang Labor doesn't mention the SA version of the party, which makes it a slightly problematic wikilink. Maybe we could add something brief to that article? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There should at least be some mention in Lang Labor (though it's not something I feel like I can slip in easily: it's a narrative article entirely structured around Lang's shenanigans in NSW), but I should really getting around to writing Lang Labor Party (South Australia): it's a significant part of telling the story of 1930s-era South Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should redlink it for now? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me. Redirecting that title to Lang Labor would be the other option but that article says nothing about the SA party. Incidentally, there is a 1969 article "Lang Labor in South Australia" by Don Hopgood in the journal "Labour History" (vol 17), which seems to be available through JSTOR. Not relevant to the FAC but thought it worth noting somewhere as it would seem to be useful for filling in the red link. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it needs to be bluelinked for this to pass (I am an old biddie in Wikipedia terms and can't keep up with changing criteria) I'll see what I can do about digging that JSTOR article up and making it happen in the next couple days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't need to be blue-linked to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me. Redirecting that title to Lang Labor would be the other option but that article says nothing about the SA party. Incidentally, there is a 1969 article "Lang Labor in South Australia" by Don Hopgood in the journal "Labour History" (vol 17), which seems to be available through JSTOR. Not relevant to the FAC but thought it worth noting somewhere as it would seem to be useful for filling in the red link. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should redlink it for now? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There should at least be some mention in Lang Labor (though it's not something I feel like I can slip in easily: it's a narrative article entirely structured around Lang's shenanigans in NSW), but I should really getting around to writing Lang Labor Party (South Australia): it's a significant part of telling the story of 1930s-era South Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Lang Labor doesn't mention the SA version of the party, which makes it a slightly problematic wikilink. Maybe we could add something brief to that article? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Two quibbles with the above: there absolutely was a (formal) Lang Labor Party in South Australia, and they swept out all the incumbents in Denny's three-member seat in 1933, which is why that sentence says as much as can be said. I felt that the reason Denny lost in 1933 was implied there - the PLP was obliterated and nearly all its members were defeated - but that's one point that could probably be fixed by making it explicit in one sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and comments. This is my first FAC on a politician, I'm mainly a Milhist guy, so bear with me. I'll start working though your comments and raise any queries as I go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had FAs promoted with red links in the past. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:
- Why the scare quotes around Parliamentary Labor Party?
- My understanding was that it wasn't really a party, per se, with grassroots members, more a grouping of members of Parliament. But if that is incorrect, happy to remove them from the lead and body.
- They were a bloc of members of parliament, and considering they contained what had previously the entire Cabinet had to have significant grassroots support in e.g. campaigning in 1933. I think they're definitely a party (they certainly contested the 1933 election as one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Removed scare quotes in lead and body. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They were a bloc of members of parliament, and considering they contained what had previously the entire Cabinet had to have significant grassroots support in e.g. campaigning in 1933. I think they're definitely a party (they certainly contested the 1933 election as one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding was that it wasn't really a party, per se, with grassroots members, more a grouping of members of Parliament. But if that is incorrect, happy to remove them from the lead and body.
- The lead doesn't state when he joined the Labor Party, and essentially suggests that it could have been anytime between 1900 and 1917 (this is important because he was only briefly an Ind. Liberal)
- Actually, he was a member of the ULP when he ran unsuccessfully in 1899, then he ran as an independent liberal in 1900 and again in 1902 and 1905. I wouldn't say he was "briefly" an independent liberal, he won two elections and lost another as an independent liberal. Assuming that they were strict about party members not running against other party members, he must have resigned from the ULP after the 1899 election and before the 1900 by-election. He must have rejoined the ULP after the 1905 election and before the 1906 election, but I haven't found a source for the actual date.
- Is there a way this could be explained better in the lede? I feel it's a little vague prior to 1917, and his earliest affiliations I don't think are in the infobox? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have tried to make it clearer. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Only further suggestion I'd have is clarifying the infobox re: his parties (it doesn't mention years or his PLP stint). The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have tried to make it clearer. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way this could be explained better in the lede? I feel it's a little vague prior to 1917, and his earliest affiliations I don't think are in the infobox? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he was a member of the ULP when he ran unsuccessfully in 1899, then he ran as an independent liberal in 1900 and again in 1902 and 1905. I wouldn't say he was "briefly" an independent liberal, he won two elections and lost another as an independent liberal. Assuming that they were strict about party members not running against other party members, he must have resigned from the ULP after the 1899 election and before the 1900 by-election. He must have rejoined the ULP after the 1905 election and before the 1906 election, but I haven't found a source for the actual date.
- Denny's expulsion had very little to do with him personally; he was expelled because the entire ministry was expelled for supporting the Premiers' Plan, and I think the sentence about him being ejected from the ALP could better reflect that The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, it was the whole cabinet. I'll address that. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mike Christie
editI'm copyediting a little as I go; please revert as needed. Overall this is in fine shape.
- "he was elected as an ULP candidate": surely "a ULP"?
- You only use the abbreviation ALP once; I think you should drop it and use the expanded form.
- The abbreviation ULP is not explained in the lead, but it is given in the first paragraph of early life. If it's worth explaining I think it should be done on first use. I'm not crazy about doing that sort of thing in the lead, so you might rephrase to avoid needing it there.
- "During his time as Attorney-General, Denny legislated important reforms": did Denny write or otherwise originate the bills referred to? It seems odd to say "he legislated" when passing a bill is an act of a legislative body, not of one person.
- Would it be possible to get a map showing South Australia and the Northern Territory within Australia, and ideally showing Adelaide? A map showing one or more of the electoral districts he ran for would be a nice touch too.
- "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes": should this be "carried out"?
- "he was one of few Labor politicians invited to unveil memorials": I think "one of the few" would read more naturally.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your points except the map one. Unfortunately, due to the size of the infobox, there is very limited space for any more images, and adding such a map would definitely be problematic in the relevant section due to text sandwiching. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fair enough on the map; everything else looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your points except the map one. Unfortunately, due to the size of the infobox, there is very limited space for any more images, and adding such a map would definitely be problematic in the relevant section due to text sandwiching. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: this one seems to be travelling ok with three supports, an image check and no opposes. Given it is an older nom, any chance I can be granted leave to nominate a fresh one while this one goes through? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, go ahead -- at the same time, pls seek a source review for formatting/reliability for this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy. Will do. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: would you mind having a look at the sources for this one? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Dead link
- Brooks et al: typically we don't include titles in author names
- Newspapers: I realize this is the formatting that NLA provides, but it's problematic.
- Some of the wikilinks don't go to the right places - you don't mean observer and chronicle, you mean the publications by those titles.
- Should be consistent in whether the initial The is included in publication titles, and whether it is considered when alphabetizing.
- The first parenthetical - (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954) - should be excluded
- The second parenthetical is inconsistent in how locations are presented
- The publication is not the author - where there is no named author, suggest excluding author parameter and sorting by either publication title or article title
- Some entries are missing page numbers
- AWM: you're crediting AWM as the author, work, and publisher - pick one. Same with City of Mitcham
- SA Parliament or Parliament of South Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, @Nikkimaria: think all those are fixed now. I've sorted the websites by publisher, because they don't all have authors. Would an alternative be better? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, though not the clearest - what I've often seen is alphabetize by author if present and by title if not (eg. Lincoln, Mitcham, Powell). Up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have adopted your suggestion. Thanks for the source review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.