Wikipedia:Peer review/Gough Whitlam/archive1

Gough Whitlam

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… it's a former FA that I'm salvaging and I intend to nom it for a return to FA. Feedback welcome.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• What's with the capitalisation of adjectives in things like Northern Australia, Government School etc?
• I think that more details should be given on Whitlam's policies, if necessary at the expense of a lot of details on by-elections etc, especially peripheral background information eg the specific seat that Gorton took over from Holt, or that McEwen was caretaker for a few weeks or that Holt's body was never found.
• On the matter of content, I am surprised there isn't more on Vietnam given how much it was part of social debate at the time, or Whitlam's refusal to take in refugees from South Vietnam especially former embassy staffers, which created a ruckus. The thing about East Timor is also only added in at the end of a later life section, which seems out of place and also because there was a large controversy about Whitlam turning a blind eye to Indonesia. As well as all this he did make sweeping social changes etc and his legacy is still hotly debated, and I think the article should have more on policy detail YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it. This is what peer review is for. Feel free to add more comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added stuff about his accomplishments. I'll look into Vietnam and Timor.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I've been looking at the prose in the lead and first section. I can't promise this level of prose review for the whole article, but I'll do what I can. I don't know enough about Australia's politics to do more than check out the prose, though I do remember reading about the Whitlam affair at the time (I was quite young then) and wondering what was going on. I'm looking forward to finding out more as I go through.

• Lead
  • "new Federal capital of Canberra" - is the capital F correct?
  • "he assumed the federal Labor leadership and became Leader of the Opposition." the words "federal Labor" are unnecessary.
  • "After falling short of gaining enough seats to win government at the 1969 election,..." This is a wordy way of saying "After narrowly failing to win the 1969 election..."
  • Suggest link "appropriations bills". Likewise, "landslide" could be linked to "landslide victory"
• Early and family life
  • Three "ands" in first sentence of second paragraph. Sentence needs splitting.
  • Construction of first sentence of third para also needs attention
  • "to spend his formative years" → "to have spent his formative years"
  • The "and" connector in the sentence starting "At the time..." is inappropriate since the the two parts of the sentence are not closely related.
  • Gough's award of a prize should be given a year.
  • "where he studied first arts, and then remained for his legal studies." Needs simplifying, suggest "where he studied arts and later law."
  • It might be as well to explain why Whitlam was still at university in 1942 when he would have been 26 (having gone there at 18). Presumably this has to do with his legal studies, but even so, eight years seems rather a long time. (And I see from later that he had to go back and finish his studies after the war!)
  • "The couple have now been married more than two-thirds of a century,..." The "have now" is problematic because it begs the question "when is now"? Also, "had three sons and a daughter"? If the sons and daughter are still living, it should be "have".
  • Saying he volunteered for the RAAF in late 1941 is confusing, since previously you say he was still at university in 1942.
  • "While the party was elected..." I think "victorious" is more precise.

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll work on this tomorrow (it is still Wednesday here).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made most of Brian's comments. It's unclear why he took so long to finish his legal studies. Hocking never directly discusses it, but he was involved in a lot of student activities and that might have slowed things up. His initial service in the Sydney University regiment took him out of school.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "After falling short of gaining enough seats to win government at the 1969 election", the key point is actually that Labor did gain an awful lot of seats at that election - up 18 to 59 - but fell 4 seats short. In that sense, the 1969 election is actually more significant in terms of Whitlam's overall political achievement (it was his first as opposition leader) than the one he actually won in 1972. Orderinchaos 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (McMahon consoled himself with the thought that he hadn't lost as many seats as Gorton did), but the time to cover that is in the body, not the lede. But 1969 did make Labor a mainstream party, respectable in the cities and suburban belts.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)