Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberal Movement
- 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 03:22, 12 April 2007.
Liberal Movement[edit]
The Liberal Movement (usually referred to as the LM) was a minor Australian political party that flourished in the 1970s. Stemming from discontent within the ranks of the Liberal and Country League, it was first formed by former South Australian Premier Steele Hall as an internal group in 1972 in response to a lack of reform within its parent. A year later, when tensions heightened between the LCL's conservative wing and the LM, it was established on its own in as a progressive liberal party. When still part of the league, it had eleven representatives; on its own, it initially had three.
This is a delightful piece of South Australian political history that I've been working on for a while now. It's thorough, well referenced, and has been subject to some helpful advice from fellow Wikipedians.
Comments and advice will be responded to promptly. Thank you! michael talk 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments You might want to put your references after your notes section, and wikilink the dates that you retrieved the web sources from. Also, I would prefer it if your lead paragraphs had a citation or two. Good stuff though! SGGH 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support comprehensive work.--cj | talk 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but a final copy-edit by someone who's unfamiliar with the text would be good; why stop at 95% quality? Here are random examples I picked up at the top.
- "propeitary"
- "Don Dunstan-led Labor Government"—identify cumbersome nominal groups like this; easy to reword: "Labor government led by Don Dunstan".
- "led to it being absorbed back into the LCL"—This is ungrammatical ("its" is required, which may be a little old-fashioned now). Try "let to its reabsorption into the LCL".
- Pick up ungainly ordering of phrases and clauses: "The non-Labor forces succeeded, after an initial loss in 1977, in ascending to office in the 1979 election." Try "After an initial loss in 1977, the non-Labor forces succeeded in gaining office in the 1979 election." "Ascending to" sounded biblical; heck, they're only politicians.
- Word order: "who would have normally been attracted to the LCL"—try "have" after "normally".
- "Labor's leader, Don Dunstan, also introduced a bill ..." What does "also" refer back to? Remove it, particularly as this starts a new para?
- "property based qualifications"—Hyphen essential, even in AmEng.
- "sought to retain their influence"—I think they did retain their influence.
- It would be wise to provide just a passing, general idea of the left/right positioning of these parties. The term "Liberal", and "small-l Liberal", will be a problem for some English speakers, particularly in North America. In Canada, the Liberals are vaguely centrist/leftish in Ottawa, but are the conservative party in British Columbia; go figure. In the US, "liberal" means kind-of centrist, as opposed to the Republican right. In the UK, the Liberal Party is something different again. In Australia, "Liberal" = conservative. Surely some initial glossing of the parties and the way Australians understand these terms would be a good idea. Tony 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I don't think the prose is "brilliant" as would be required for a FA - definitely not as good as the other Featured Articles from South Australia. Besides a copyedit, I think it could be rewritten to be a bit clearer and more interesting. Can we also have some more varied pictures? Three pictures are all of different parts of Parliament House - I'd prefer some things more associated with the party— leaders, campaign materials, a party meeting or rally, etc. perhaps? If these things are fixed up I would be happy to change to support. JRG 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to both comments. Obviously the main problem arises from the prose. I'll give it a run through, would appreciate some feedback, and if it is still not up to standard I'll put in a request for someone else to have a go. As for pictures? All of the ones from the time are copyrighted and owned by Newscorp. None available. michael talk 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.