Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muckaty Station/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 GrahamColm 12:44, 12 August 2012 [1].

---

Muckaty Station

Muckaty Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Muckaty Station/archive1

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, obscure though Muckaty Station is, it is of special interest, at least for a year or two yet, as Australia's only (and controversial) proposed location for a nuclear waste repository. The article is short. Until the waste repository proposal, it was simply one piece in the vast patchwork of the remote Australian outback. Even now, very little has been researched or written about the place. If, during review, anyone identifies sources I've not included, please let me know. Though semi-retired long-term, I will be active around this nomination and one or two other projects at present. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Shepherd 1996

• damn. Um. Not sure... This may take a while to track down. Don't know what i did there... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, found that. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Compare formatting on FNs 4 and 16/17 and 44

• tweaked, thanks for seeing that. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fn48: don't use all-caps. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know why article has had to wait so long for attention; it can't be its length. Anyway, I have read it through and these are my observations:

Lead

• There should be an indication in the lead of the total area of the land known as Mukaty Station

• added.

• Is there a distinction between "Australian Aborigines" and "Indigenous Australians"?

• Yes, but it is a bit fraught. "Australian Aborigine" and related terms are generally ones of legal significance, as you can see from the way the two WP articles are distinguished. I used it in the first occurrence in the lead, because I was trying to draw attention to the legal context of the land tenure. It didn't work very well. I have changed the structure of the link, and directed it to Native title in Australia, which I hope is better. The whole issue is becoming more complex again in Australia, as many Indigenous Australians are now abandoning the term "Indigenous", which has been the preferred word for around two decades. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It should be possible to avoid describing Mukaty Station as a pastoral lease in both the first and second sentences.

• reworked. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Muckaty Station was returned to its Indigenous custodians in 1999." Dubious capital there.

• Happy to be guided by editors here. It is accepted style where i work to captalise this word. It is capitalised by the Australian government, the Australian Museum and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for example. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

History: (I must say I found this section a little confusing)

• I re-read the history section after your comments, and decided I had, in fact, done a rubbish job. It was embarrassing. It is now completely restructured and expanded. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It would be useful to know roughly how many indigenous Australians were on the land when development started in the 1870s, and whether this population increased or declined in the ensuing years.

• I have added what I have been able to find. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "a pastoral industry"? Sheep farming?

• Er, no. Cattle. Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• What does "sealing" mean in the context "but was not sealed until 1944"?

• Must be a regional english thing. It means "bitumenised", a word I hate, but which does have the advantage of being less ambiguous. Changed.

• The third paragraph includes the sentences "The first pastoral lease was granted in 1872" and "The Muckaty pastoral lease was created in the late 19th century". Are these saying the same thing?

• No, the "first" refers to first in the Northern Territory, for which we have a definite date. Regarding Muckaty we know only that it was late 19th century. Will tweak. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unnecessary parentheses around "lack of"

• Removed.

• We seem to be missing something between "By the 1940s the lessee was a Mr Fred Ulyatt.." and the 1980s.

• Unfortunately, we are not missing anyting per reliable sources - there is no information available. Have made this explicit in the text.

• Inappropriate italicisation: "Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976"

• It is universal practice, to my knowledge, to italicise the full name of legislation. Am I missing something here?

• Don't know where you got that idea from. Look at the linked article, or indeed any WP article dealing with a piece of legislation. I think the italics convention relates to actual legal cases, e.g. Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott v. Sandford, but not to legislation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was following the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, the Harvard AGPS referencing guide and the American Psychological Association Referencing Manual. If WP is not italicising legislation then it is WP that is out of step with major referencing conventions. I agere that we do not seem to italicise act names. It's very odd, given that WP referencing in most respects follows other major styles. Will change. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some overlinking, e.g "dreaming" linked twice. The link on "Australian government" is unhelpful.

• Removed.

Geography

• Title should reflect that the section discusses geology as well as geography

• Done.

• "Mucketty mine" and "Muckaty station": any explanations for these names and the slight difference?

• None in the sources.

• It would be a good idea to include in the History section the information that the origins of the Muckaty name are unknown and that there are local variations. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it would. I did that, but an editor removed it on the grounds that it isn't notable to note what we don't know. ;-) I will reinstate a version of that sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• On the question of the history of names, of course it is valid to say that the origin of a name is unknown. To simply say nothing is to invite queries. I can't, incidentally, see where you have reinstated a version of the removed sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's in footnote 2. I tried keeping it in the text, but felt it interrupted the flow of other information.

• People often don't read foonotes. I don't think it would disturb the flow if you extended the existing parentheses to read: "(and often referred to as just "Muckaty", though the origin of this name and near variants such as "Mucketty" is unknown)". That way, the curiosity of people like me would be satisified early on. I'll leave this with you, though. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• True - have tried a modified version of your suggestion, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why use the word "overstory" instead of the better-known "canopy"?

• I think I must have just used the term in the source from which I worked. Changed.

Radioactive waste facility

• Minor prose point: "amongst" → "among"

• Changed.

• "...political party the Australian Greens are opposed..." Very clumsy order of words

• Changed.

• I understand from the first paragraph that in September 2007 the government accepted the nomination of Muckaty Satation as the site for the waste facility. But in paragraph 3 we have "In 2009, the Australian government received a consultant's report that examined Muckaty Station as one of three possible sites for a nuclear waste facility" - can you clarify?

• I reworked it. See if this change seems adequate. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• The use of quotation marks in the last sentence of the Legal action subsection needs attention.

• Quite possibly, but I'm too dense to see what the problem is!

Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• On this last point, the text after "never consulted..." is a quote from the source. This needs to be made clear, thus: According to a June 2012 report in The Age, some indigenous owners "will testify they were never consulted, while others [will] say that they were not properly consulted and never consented to the nomination".

• Ah yes, I see. Quite. I have adopted your formulation, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I will attend to more points later. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your recent amendments have largely dealt with my points and have certainly improved the article. However, I don't think my point about the origin of the name has been fully addressed. Also, in the references I noticed several hyphens in page ranges; these should be changed to dashes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of the changes which have been effected since my review. The few outstanding points are mainly a question of judgement. I'm glad to see you have downgraded your "retirement" to "semi"; perhaps this article will pave the way for a cautious reentry to regular editing? Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian. I've been busy contributing to reviews here and improving the biography of a favourite artist, but unfortunately have been slimed, so may have to retreat soon to recover! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support A lot of good work has been done to improve this article in recent weeks and I support its promotion to FA. Johnfos (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Comments - reading through now on prose and comprehensiveness..no deal-breakers outstanding...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Johnfos and Cas, appreciate the kind words. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- image check and source spotchecks performed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Images

• Muckaty station or Station? Captions don't match article text

• you were right, and some were wrong in the text as well. I'm terrible with consistency of caps. Have now fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both of the images used have appropriate licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Fayedizard

Spotchecks for Muckaty Station using revision [2]. There are roughtly 55 cited sentances and we choose 8 randomly

• 1 "The region is semi-arid, and the vegetation is generally scrubland."

Source says: "The land is semi-arid" and "The vegetation is low scrub" :)

• 2 "The Adelaide–Darwin railway, which passes through the western part of Muckaty Station, was completed in early 2004."

Source says: "On 15 January 2004 the first freight train departed from Adelaide for the inaugural two-day journey to Darwin. " :)

• 3 "and media reports"

This is the problem with randomly selecting sentences and defining a sentence as anything between two references... the sources support the text though...

• 4 "Throughout the history of Australia's pastoral industry, Indigenous Australians were a major part of the workforce. In 1928 for example, 80 per cent of Indigenous people with jobs were employed on the stations, including Muckaty, with many living on and travelling across the pastoral leases."

The online sources support everything but the 1982 part. I'm happy to assume that the book covers that... :)

• 5 "In 2009, the Australian government received a consultant's report that examined Muckaty Station as one of four possible sites for a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory."

It's a bit of a primary source... but I don't think it would be controversial (be great to have someone look over my shoulder on this...

• The primary nature of the source is not so much an issue in this case but I'd have thought we could narrow things down to a page or two to support the assertion in the WP article text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• 6 "Most of the region's fauna is typical of desert environments. Species include the Red Kangaroo, the Eastern Wallaroo (also known as the Euro), the Northern Nail-tail Wallaby, and the Spinifex Hopping Mouse. The Central Pebble-mound Mouse also occurs in the region, and other mammal species including the Forrest's Mouse, Desert Mouse and Short-beaked Echidna have been predicted by biologists to occur on the station."

Source says: "flora and fauna species, especially ground fauna, are more typical of a desert

environment than the Top End." the list of species is also supported. :)

• 7 "The Tomkinson Group includes layers of coarse sandstones and conglomerates, with some claystone and siltstone, deposited in a fluvial to shallow marine environment. There are also Cambrian basaltic rocks, particularly near the homestead."

Source supports.

• 8 "As Aboriginal Freehold land it is inalienable communal title, and cannot be bought or sold."

Source says: "This means it is privately

owned under a special freehold title. It is inalienable (cannot be bought, acquired or forfeited) and is granted as a communal title. " :)

All spotchecks look good :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing comment - Could the nominator please address the comment regarding the page ranges in the source spotcheck. Graham Colm (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason for this reference is that it IS the consultant's report referred to in the sentence. It is just a reference to say "here is the report", as proof it exists, as it were. However, I will give a page ref for the cover page that shows the date it was delivered, and the first page, that states that it is a consultant's report for the government. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I gathered that, and if the report focussed solely on Muckaty, I'd not have brought it up; however with it being one of four possible sites, and the report being quite detailed, I think we need to be pointed to a page or pages clearly and succinctly making the connection between Muckaty and the nuclear waste site proposal. Citing the report is not just to provide evidence of its own existence, it's to provide evidence of Muckaty as a possible nuclear waste site -- no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, see what you're getting at now. Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.