Talk:Anti-nuclear movement in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Anti-nuclear movement in Australia 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Australia / Politics      (Rated GA-Class) Portal Anti-nuclear movement in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Energy     (Rated GA-Class) Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy. Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Environment (Rated GA-Class) Portal This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Failed "good article" nomination 2 For info re Coronation Hill 3 Improvements to article 4 GA passed 5 Long "see also" list

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pass

2. Factually accurate?: pass

3. Broad in coverage?: fail

4. Neutral point of view?: pass

5. Article stability? pass

6. Images?: pass (at GA level)

This is beautifully done to this point - many thanks to User:johnfos for great work. To reach GA it should probably cover a few more things, some very briefly:

• Maralinga and the Royal Commission of Inquiry, which fed public anti-nuclear sentiment via some good traditional Australian 'pommie-bashing'
• The Nuclear Disarmament Party and perhaps mention Peter Garrett's role at that time, give his current ministerial responsibilities
• Some specific sites, such as the Roxby Downs protests and mine; the negative views about mine safety arising from the Rum Jungle site; Ranger Uranium Mine
• Ongoing (very public) debates within the Australian Labor Party about its no new mines / 'three mines' policy (particularly since, as currently drafted, the reader might mistakenly tend to form the impression that the ALP was anti-uranium)
• (For FA-level comprehensiveness more than GA) compare and contrast to New Zealand and its decision to go nuclear-free, impact on ANZUS treaty etc and how that relates to the anti-nuclear movements in each country.
• Ideally it needs some graphics - a photo of a major campaign event (such as the mid-80s rallies) or of that protester/s always dressed as death on a barrel of yellowcake; or a map showing major uranium mines in Australia - but I'm aware of all the problems with images - particularly for events that are non-current but still in in-copyright era!

If everyone is comfortable with this assessment I can try and make some contributions to follow up, particularly on the NDP and the ALP policy

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— hamiltonstone (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hamilton, for your very fair review. Yes, it would be good if you could see your way clear to adding some more content please. Thank you for reviewing. Johnfos (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey John, think I've sorted it... but with not much experience with these things, who knows! See you around... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For info re Coronation Hill

It is a common misconception that there was a proposal in the late 1980s to mine uranium at Coronation Hill in Kakadu National Park. There was a small uranium mine at that location in the 1950s or 1960s (the hill's non-Indigenous name is related to the deposit's discover at the time of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, I think). However, hte major controversy in the late 80s / early 90s concerned a proposed gold mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hamilton, for this clarification and for your additions to this article. I will re-submit it for GA soon... Johnfos (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to article

I think we need to ensure that only major items are included in the "external links" seciton, and not news items etc which may be minor in terms of the subject and/or better included as references to article text. Ultimately the same may be true of the "quotes" section. I'm going to integrate some of this into the body of the article.

Generally, there also needs to be care taken re NPOV. At the moment there are no views outlining criticisms or limitations of the Australian anti-nuclear movement and this perhaps should be addressed (it was not something I thought about originally). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Based on the last review +a lot of work passed since then, I'll pass this. Some suggestions for further improvement...

• The lead could do with a word in bold...not sure what, but it just looks...odd
• The second paragraph really should talk a bit more about what anti-nuclear stuff has been done here
• Any more quotes?

Nice work all involved! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Diggy, for reviewing, and thanks also to Hamilton for his efforts. We did have some more quotes at one stage, but they seem to have been taken out. Will try to retrieve them and make some other improvements... Johnfos (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, and you're welcome. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long "see also" list

I'm surprised the article meets GA standard with such a long "See also" list. Many of these articles should be linked from the text. I was particularly surprised to find that Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant is not worthy of attention in the article, I would be stunned if its abandonment was not related to the Anti-nuclear movement in some way. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article explains that the first groups which were specifically anti-nuclear were formed in 1976 and 1977, and these included the Movement Against Uranium Mining and Campaign Against Nuclear Energy (or Power). But the Jervis Bay saga occurred much earlier, from 1969 to mid-1971. As Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant explains, it was mainly a change in PM and financial concerns that led to the shelving of the Jervis Bay project.

I think that Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant deserves a link in "See also", but not a further mention in connection with the Anti-nuclear movement. As WP:ALSO explains, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Johnfos (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)