Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey 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: March 25, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think the public opinion section should include the Guardian Essential poll result on whether the process was a good one and should be used again. Diff showing my wording and source Because the survey was a novel process, it is part of the public opinion to know whether the process was liked or disliked by the public. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made some edits to improve this section, but am considering removing it outright. My concern is that it misrepresents the nature of how the parliament works: as Australia has a representative democracy it's entirely normal for how MPs vote on individual issues to differ from the majority view on that issue in their electorate, especially as MPs belonging to a party almost always vote on the party line (ALP MPs are actually required to do so). In particular, this is a perennial issue with conscience votes such as that granted to MPs by the major parties on this issue given that MPs are explicitly freed from following any party line and vote in line with their personal views. The section lacks this context, and is entirely wrong-headed. Nick-D ( talk) 23:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Only a couple of minor changes required
@ Jono52795: -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 00:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For the two maps near the top, "Results by state and territory" & "Results by electorate", there are different intensities of colour, presumably representing vote percentages, but no key to interpret them beyond yes/no. Chriswaterguy talk 06:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There’s not much on here about the controversy regarding mail fraud, this article from crikey covers it well https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/09/18/i-couldve-committed-voter-fraud-in-the-gay-marriage-postal-vote/ in a way it really puts to shame the American 2020 election voter fraud issue when you consider what occurred in Australia 120.29.62.84 ( talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey 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: March 25, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think the public opinion section should include the Guardian Essential poll result on whether the process was a good one and should be used again. Diff showing my wording and source Because the survey was a novel process, it is part of the public opinion to know whether the process was liked or disliked by the public. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made some edits to improve this section, but am considering removing it outright. My concern is that it misrepresents the nature of how the parliament works: as Australia has a representative democracy it's entirely normal for how MPs vote on individual issues to differ from the majority view on that issue in their electorate, especially as MPs belonging to a party almost always vote on the party line (ALP MPs are actually required to do so). In particular, this is a perennial issue with conscience votes such as that granted to MPs by the major parties on this issue given that MPs are explicitly freed from following any party line and vote in line with their personal views. The section lacks this context, and is entirely wrong-headed. Nick-D ( talk) 23:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Only a couple of minor changes required
@ Jono52795: -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 00:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For the two maps near the top, "Results by state and territory" & "Results by electorate", there are different intensities of colour, presumably representing vote percentages, but no key to interpret them beyond yes/no. Chriswaterguy talk 06:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There’s not much on here about the controversy regarding mail fraud, this article from crikey covers it well https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/09/18/i-couldve-committed-voter-fraud-in-the-gay-marriage-postal-vote/ in a way it really puts to shame the American 2020 election voter fraud issue when you consider what occurred in Australia 120.29.62.84 ( talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)