Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Garran

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 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Robert Garran

(I am the main contributor so far to this article.)

In my opinion this article is a comprehensive and accurate treatment of the subject, an important "behind-the-scenes" figure in Australian politics for forty years or so around the turn of the 20th century. I believe that it meets all of the criteria; it is extensively cited, stable, and well-organised. The article only includes public domain images available on the Commons.

See also this archived peer review, and this archived WikiProject Biography peer review. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Simply a pleasure to read, which could be due to such an interesting man, the proficient prose, or both! michael ^talk 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support an interesting and well written article. I suspect that some of the wording could be simplified a bit though, but this isn't a major issue. --Nick Dowling 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support fulfls all criteria. I am impressed with the prose. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderfully and warmly written. I have a few minor suggestions for the format of the references section. On my browser (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/2007040315 Firefox/2.0.0.3 (Ubuntu-feisty)) the references come out in 3 columns (too narrow) due to the Wikimedia Commons box getting its own column; to fix this, you can change the references to single-column, or move the box. Page ranges should use endashes rather than hyphens (e.g., 420–422 rather than 420-422). The many references to Prosper the Commonwealth could be coalesced into references with a short title as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations (see Johannes Kepler for an example). Eubulides 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support brilliantly written work on a very significant fellow. Well done.--cj | talk 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the article itself is excellent and I have no problems with it. There are some minor points, however, that need addressing. I would like the redlinks cleaned up, though, if possible - there are far too many for a Featured Article. Some of these could be removed (like Garran's sons - are they notable or am I just ignorant?; and does every Act of Parliament need a Wikipedia page?); some can be expanded upon; Secondly, the bibliography needs cleaning up with a "notes and references" section, or two separate "notes" and "References" sections, then an "external links" section as is desirable in Wikipedia. Great work though; these are just minor nitpicking points that I would like to see addressed as they will make the article even better. JRG 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've put the footnotes into a "notes" section and given a bibliography type list of sources in a "references" section, as you suggest. This also happens to solve the problem with the {{Commons}} box. As to redlinks, I must say that I don't see what the problem is with having them. --bainer (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - all fixed. JRG 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until properly copy-edited, preferably by fresh eyes. Here are examples, just from the lead, of why the whole text needs loving attention: "Garran was also an important figure in the development of the city of Canberra"—If "also" is used, merge the paragraphs. Otherwise, just remove "also". "German language poetry"—pipe it as "German poetry". "Several" appears twice in quick succession in the second para; make the second one "at least [number]" if you really don't know how many books he wrote. "Providing" would be more formal, and nicer, than "giving". "the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia"—rationalise and pipe as "the first employee of the Government of Australia and its first Solicitor-General". "ten different Prime Ministers (from Barton to Lyons)" ... the ten of them would hardly be the same, so remove "different" as redundant; consider a comma after "Ministers" rather than the parentheses. Tony 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well Tony, you raise a number of issues there:

the ten of them would hardly be the same: in the period shortly after Federation several PMs had multiple terms; Garran served under sixteen governments, but ten individual PMs. The sentence is speaking about the people he worked with. I can mention in addition that he served under sixteen governments if that would clarify things.

So we've had four PMs over the past 11 years, then? Tony 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

pipe it as "German poetry": I've said "German language poetry" because although Heine and Schumann were German nationals, Schubert was Austrian, writing in the German language.

Oh, I think this is splitting hairs. GLP just seems cumbersome. At least hyphenate the double epithet, then, to make it smoother to read.

the first Solicitor-General of Australia—rationalise and pipe: I think it's important to include the full job title unpiped in the lede, even if that means that the wording becomes less than perfect.

Why is "its first Solicitor-General" not clear and formal enough?

"Providing" would be more formal, and nicer, than "giving": I agree, that sounds better.

If "also" is used, merge the paragraphs: That has become a little unwieldy as the result of earlier changes suggested at peer review. I've clarified that the first paragraph is discussing his professional career while the second is about his community and other work.

So remove "also". Tony 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--bainer (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, the prose reads fine in my eyes. Seems to meet all five of the FA criteria. Daniel 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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.