April 1865 Bruce by-election has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 1, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 1865 Bruce by-election received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from April 1865 Bruce by-election appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 February 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
J947, regarding your query on my talk page ("What do you think is needed in the April 1865 Bruce by-election article to get it to B-class?"), I've added a B-class checklist to the WPNZ template above. The only area that needs work is coverage of the topic; this is how I see it:
But if you want to put more work in, why stop there? Why not go for GA? The difference isn't massive. Nice supporting material, which would not be needed for B class and isn't essential for GA either, would be a map showing the electorate in 1865 that also identifies the polling booths. And as an aside, we should give Clapcott his own article. What do you think? I'm certainly keen to chip in. Schwede 66 02:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Good examples of by-election articles:
Hope this helps. Schwede 66 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Christie, thank you for your thorough and constructive GA review. That's much appreciated. And congratulations to J947 for getting your first article to GA class. Well done. What's next? Schwede 66 17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should add an edit notice to this page explaining about the use of ' Tokomairiro' instead of 'Milton' or 'Tokomairaro '; as that's what is being used all over the page except for the explanation in the first paragraph of the 'Nomination meeting' section. J 947 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The Dyer contesting this election may not have been the same as William John Dyer, as this source from The Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle states that the first two initials in Dyer's name were J. C. Mentioning Schwede66. J 947 20:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
which in those days was called Tokomairiro or Tokomairaro, as why the Court House is called that way: odd phrasing, and I don't really understand what it's trying to say.
This was following a report by the Otago Daily Times on 23 March 1865 that the Returning Officer had selected that date: unnecessary detail, surely? Why do we care that a newspaper reported that this would be the date?
some words as Henry Clapcott's representative, an action opposed by other electors: they opposed him speaking? After reading the source I was able to figure it out, but this paragraph is a bit hard to follow. I would suggest rewriting this as an explanation to a modern reader of the sequence of events; it currently reads as though you're trying to follow the spirit of the original newspaper article (e.g. "Laughingly").
which drew problems: unclear.
Clapcott placed an advertisement on 5 April in the Otago Daily Times stating that he had withdrawn from the contest for the seat, meaning that the reason for the poll was then moot: why was it moot? There was only one vacancy, and two candidates, so the election had to proceed, didn't it?
Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalfexplains it. J 947 ( c), at 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
the reason for the poll was now moot; the reason for the poll was that supporters of Clapcott demanded it, and as Clapcott withdrew before the election the reason for the poll was then moot. J 947 ( c), at 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalf, which was held on 8 April 1865, then
The election was held on 8 April 1865...the poll was then moot. However, the poll still proceeded, followed by the election results. So the poll happened on the same day as the election? But you give no results of the poll? The way it's written it looks as though the poll and the election are the same thing, but from your answers it appears that's not the case. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
the electorate was won by John Cargill: surely "the election", not "the electorate"?
The prose is not very strong; I've copyedited a few obvious infelicities but a good copyeditor would help, and in several places I wasn't sure of the intended meaning. I think the accounts taken from the newspaper of the electors' meeting need to be recast as modern explanations. The article seems comprehensive; I've no trouble believing there are few other sources. I'll place this on hold to give you time to work on these points. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that the references at the end are out of alphabetical order. Other than that the only outstanding point is the question about why the province would be left without a functioning executive. To be honest, it's clear it was an issue from the sources, so I won't hold up GA for it, but it would be much better to explain why it's the case if that can be done so I'll hold on to see if Schwede66 can help. If not, I'll promote anyway. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
April 1865 Bruce by-election has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 1, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 1865 Bruce by-election received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from April 1865 Bruce by-election appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 February 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
J947, regarding your query on my talk page ("What do you think is needed in the April 1865 Bruce by-election article to get it to B-class?"), I've added a B-class checklist to the WPNZ template above. The only area that needs work is coverage of the topic; this is how I see it:
But if you want to put more work in, why stop there? Why not go for GA? The difference isn't massive. Nice supporting material, which would not be needed for B class and isn't essential for GA either, would be a map showing the electorate in 1865 that also identifies the polling booths. And as an aside, we should give Clapcott his own article. What do you think? I'm certainly keen to chip in. Schwede 66 02:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Good examples of by-election articles:
Hope this helps. Schwede 66 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Christie, thank you for your thorough and constructive GA review. That's much appreciated. And congratulations to J947 for getting your first article to GA class. Well done. What's next? Schwede 66 17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should add an edit notice to this page explaining about the use of ' Tokomairiro' instead of 'Milton' or 'Tokomairaro '; as that's what is being used all over the page except for the explanation in the first paragraph of the 'Nomination meeting' section. J 947 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The Dyer contesting this election may not have been the same as William John Dyer, as this source from The Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle states that the first two initials in Dyer's name were J. C. Mentioning Schwede66. J 947 20:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
which in those days was called Tokomairiro or Tokomairaro, as why the Court House is called that way: odd phrasing, and I don't really understand what it's trying to say.
This was following a report by the Otago Daily Times on 23 March 1865 that the Returning Officer had selected that date: unnecessary detail, surely? Why do we care that a newspaper reported that this would be the date?
some words as Henry Clapcott's representative, an action opposed by other electors: they opposed him speaking? After reading the source I was able to figure it out, but this paragraph is a bit hard to follow. I would suggest rewriting this as an explanation to a modern reader of the sequence of events; it currently reads as though you're trying to follow the spirit of the original newspaper article (e.g. "Laughingly").
which drew problems: unclear.
Clapcott placed an advertisement on 5 April in the Otago Daily Times stating that he had withdrawn from the contest for the seat, meaning that the reason for the poll was then moot: why was it moot? There was only one vacancy, and two candidates, so the election had to proceed, didn't it?
Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalfexplains it. J 947 ( c), at 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
the reason for the poll was now moot; the reason for the poll was that supporters of Clapcott demanded it, and as Clapcott withdrew before the election the reason for the poll was then moot. J 947 ( c), at 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalf, which was held on 8 April 1865, then
The election was held on 8 April 1865...the poll was then moot. However, the poll still proceeded, followed by the election results. So the poll happened on the same day as the election? But you give no results of the poll? The way it's written it looks as though the poll and the election are the same thing, but from your answers it appears that's not the case. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
the electorate was won by John Cargill: surely "the election", not "the electorate"?
The prose is not very strong; I've copyedited a few obvious infelicities but a good copyeditor would help, and in several places I wasn't sure of the intended meaning. I think the accounts taken from the newspaper of the electors' meeting need to be recast as modern explanations. The article seems comprehensive; I've no trouble believing there are few other sources. I'll place this on hold to give you time to work on these points. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that the references at the end are out of alphabetical order. Other than that the only outstanding point is the question about why the province would be left without a functioning executive. To be honest, it's clear it was an issue from the sources, so I won't hold up GA for it, but it would be much better to explain why it's the case if that can be done so I'll hold on to see if Schwede66 can help. If not, I'll promote anyway. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)