1916 Australian conscription referendum was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 27, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1916 Australian conscription referendum 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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be re-named Australian Referendum 1916. Or more well known, Australian Conscription Referendum of 1916.
The word plebiscite was not used in Australia for this vote. If you check www.nla.gov.au Trove website, which contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers throughout the first half of the 20th century, you will see 16,000+ references to "Conscription Referendum" in Australian newspapers.
If you search for "Conscription Plebiscite" you will find extensive newspaper references to the Canadian conscription plebiscite of 1942 and you won't find any references at all to an Australian plebiscite of 1916.
The word "referendum" is used in Australia, not only for approval of constitutional amendments, but also for votes of this kind which are not constitutional amendments. For example, the vote around 1980 to decide on a new national anthem. The word plebiscite is not used in Australia. Eregli bob ( talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph to the background noting that it was historically called a referendum & the current usage of plebiscite to distinguish it from a constitutional alteration, with appropriate references including the factsheet noted by Rod Hagen. I don't have strong views as to the title of the page as long as the content reflects the important differences. The proposal to rename the page has been around since 2012 & no-one has expressed any opposition. I will give it another month (say 13 January 2017) & unless someone objects I will move the page to "Australian conscription referendum, 1916" Find bruce ( talk) 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The question should be:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
G'day, interesting article. I have been working through it looking for typos and MOS issues in order to help prepare it for GAN, and one thing I've noticed is that it seems to use US English variation (for instance favor, color, honor, defense, authorize, mobilize, etc.). Is there a reason for this? My understanding per WP:ENGVAR is that it should use Australian English. I've left as is, as it seems like something that should be discussed first before changing. Are there any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Unus M, I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll start out with a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
So far this looks like solid work to me, though I've noted a few possible issues below. I've tweaked some of the language for grammatical and stylistic reasons, but feel free to revert any edits you disagree with. Here are my comments from the first half of the article; I'll go through the rest once these have been addressed. Thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it's been about a week without response to the above concerns, and the editor appears inactive, I'm not listing this one at this time. To summarize, from what I've looked at so far, I think this wouldn't require too much work to get to GA, but it will require a bit of rewriting for clearer sourcing, clarity of phrasing, and avoidance of idiom. If anyone chooses to bring this up to GA in the future (and I hope someone does!) that's where I'd suggest starting. Thanks to everybody for getting this far! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Mannix heavily swayed the vote in the Aus-Irish Catholics, to vote down the Plebiscite, simply because 16 people had been executed by the British Army - from the Easter Uprising. Without Dr. Mannix's push, the Plebiscite would have voted for a "YES", for pro-conscription. Yet, it remains properly untold. — Preceding Wiki of Dr. Mannix Government Letters regarding Mannix's intention or interaction with the 1916 affair. unsigned comment added by Spanrz ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
1916 Australian conscription referendum was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 27, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1916 Australian conscription referendum 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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be re-named Australian Referendum 1916. Or more well known, Australian Conscription Referendum of 1916.
The word plebiscite was not used in Australia for this vote. If you check www.nla.gov.au Trove website, which contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers throughout the first half of the 20th century, you will see 16,000+ references to "Conscription Referendum" in Australian newspapers.
If you search for "Conscription Plebiscite" you will find extensive newspaper references to the Canadian conscription plebiscite of 1942 and you won't find any references at all to an Australian plebiscite of 1916.
The word "referendum" is used in Australia, not only for approval of constitutional amendments, but also for votes of this kind which are not constitutional amendments. For example, the vote around 1980 to decide on a new national anthem. The word plebiscite is not used in Australia. Eregli bob ( talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph to the background noting that it was historically called a referendum & the current usage of plebiscite to distinguish it from a constitutional alteration, with appropriate references including the factsheet noted by Rod Hagen. I don't have strong views as to the title of the page as long as the content reflects the important differences. The proposal to rename the page has been around since 2012 & no-one has expressed any opposition. I will give it another month (say 13 January 2017) & unless someone objects I will move the page to "Australian conscription referendum, 1916" Find bruce ( talk) 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The question should be:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
G'day, interesting article. I have been working through it looking for typos and MOS issues in order to help prepare it for GAN, and one thing I've noticed is that it seems to use US English variation (for instance favor, color, honor, defense, authorize, mobilize, etc.). Is there a reason for this? My understanding per WP:ENGVAR is that it should use Australian English. I've left as is, as it seems like something that should be discussed first before changing. Are there any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Unus M, I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll start out with a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
So far this looks like solid work to me, though I've noted a few possible issues below. I've tweaked some of the language for grammatical and stylistic reasons, but feel free to revert any edits you disagree with. Here are my comments from the first half of the article; I'll go through the rest once these have been addressed. Thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it's been about a week without response to the above concerns, and the editor appears inactive, I'm not listing this one at this time. To summarize, from what I've looked at so far, I think this wouldn't require too much work to get to GA, but it will require a bit of rewriting for clearer sourcing, clarity of phrasing, and avoidance of idiom. If anyone chooses to bring this up to GA in the future (and I hope someone does!) that's where I'd suggest starting. Thanks to everybody for getting this far! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Mannix heavily swayed the vote in the Aus-Irish Catholics, to vote down the Plebiscite, simply because 16 people had been executed by the British Army - from the Easter Uprising. Without Dr. Mannix's push, the Plebiscite would have voted for a "YES", for pro-conscription. Yet, it remains properly untold. — Preceding Wiki of Dr. Mannix Government Letters regarding Mannix's intention or interaction with the 1916 affair. unsigned comment added by Spanrz ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)