Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Playford IV

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

[edit] Thomas Playford IV

Sir Thomas Playford KCMG (July 5, 1896 – 16 June 1981) served as Premier of South Australia from November 5, 1938 to March 10, 1965, which at 26 years and 125 days, remains a British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader. His tenure as Premier was marked by a period of unprecedented population and economic growth that was not matched by any other Australian states. Playford took a unique, strong and hands-on approach to the Premiership and personally oversaw his industrial initiatives. His string of election wins were assisted by a system of malapportionment that bore his name.

This is my sixth attempt at a featured article; it is thoroughly referenced and well written. Any concerns or problems will be dealt with promptly. Thanks for voting/commenting! michael ^talk 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments The lead section lacks a bit of specificity (see WP:LEAD if you fancy)

• When you say, 'His tenure as Premier was marked by a period of unprecedented population and economic growth that was not matched by any other Australian states.' do you mean at the time or throughout Australian history?
  • In Australian history. Thus, it stands alone, and needs no further explanation.

The 'was not matched by' makes you wonder if it was just that period of Australian history or all of Australian history upto today. I couldn't say one way or another from this sentence.-BiancaOfHell 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence 'Playford took a unique, strong and hands-on approach to the Premiership and personally oversaw his industrial initiatives.' uses the word unique a bit too strongly, but maybe it's appropriate, though when you say he personally oversaw his industrial initiatives it leads me to ask 'who else would oversee their own industrial initiatives than themselves?'. The wording could be better.
  • The sentence means what it states. Most Premiers did not involve themselves in their economies as much as Playford ("unique", "strong and hands-on") and did not have industrial initiatives like Playford did.

It's not exacting enough. What is a strong approach? 'took a hands-on approach' and 'personally oversaw' are identical, and so you have a redundancy there. This sentence doesn't describe this guy's "uniqueness" well enough. Readers should be able to take away alot of information, and a summary of the entire article from just the lead section.-BiancaOfHell 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the sentence 'His string of election wins were assisted by a system of malapportionment that bore his name.' you wikify 'name' with the wikilink 'Playmander'. Playmander should probably follow name like such 'his name, Playmander'.
  • I will rectify this.
• The semicolon. Your use of the semicolon is extensive and in my years as a reader I've never seen such frequent use. You could be starting a new trend, or be misusing it. In the Family section, in the sentence 'Four children was born to the couple; three daughters and one son, Sir Thomas.' you are misusing it.
  • I probably am overusing it. I am still not the best writer, so this type of feedback is helpful; can you elaborate?

How about you tell me how many semicolons you put in the article? :) I don't even really know how to use the semicolon. Have to brush up on that.-BiancaOfHell 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are my comments at the moment. I'm a new voice here, so hopefully others will pipe in who have more experience.-BiancaOfHell 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers are indented. michael ^talk 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - it's good, but it could be better. I don't like the lead - the first paragraph is good and appropriate, but the second two paragraphs read like they belong primarily in the "Early life" section, with a few paragraphs about his premiership and later life tacked on for good measure. I'd like it fixed up and written with a better overview of the whole article - at present it's not balanced. Secondly, there's a whole paragraph on his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) without a reference. Can you add one? In fact, I think you could add a few more references to the article - one per paragraph often isn't enough. Thirdly, you may like to get someone to grammar check your article. I found some misplaced apostrophes in the article that shouldn't have been there. I would be happy to do it but don't have time at present. Fourthly, I don't think "Don Dunstan" is the best header you could have - something like "working relationship with Don Dunstan" or something like that would be more appropriate; the article is about Playford, not Don Dunstan. Otherwise well done. JROBBO 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have rewritten the latter two paragraphs of the introduction to provide an overview of his life, and will now attempt to find a reference for his religious beliefs.

(Much better. JROBBO 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

• I don't want to have to change the heading of 'Don Dunstan'. Despite Dunstan having his own article, he was integral to Playford's downfall (and that of the conservatives in South Australia), and this deserves attention. Of the sources I have, entire chapters are spent on the Playford-Dunstan relationship and transition.

• I have no intention to clutter the article needlessly with references. Forty is more than sufficient; I have referenced where appropriate, not because a certain number is expected. michael ^talk 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think it could be better referenced. The third paragraph of "Retirement", the third paragraph of fall from power, and the third paragraph of the "ascendance to office" paragraph don't have any references, and some editors could see those paragraphs, as well as elsewhere, as containing statements that are not obvious facts. I'll be happy though if you fix up those three paragraphs where it might be seen not to be obvious. JROBBO 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will reference those paragraphs; give me a day or two. michael ^talk 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work from Michael as always; the few qualms I had about this were addressed earlier. Rebecca 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The issues I raised earlier in the process have been addressed adequately. --Roisterer 08:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support very comprehensive article. More great work from Michael. --cj | talk 10:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Minor issues with references: full dates should be wikilinked, only title should be external linked, not the source. Trebor 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - excellent work.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose

Image:Playford 1956.jpg was taken in 1956, PD-Australia only applies to images pre 1955; has no source information. Will need to be changes to fair use; and there is no real reason this image could be fairly used.

Image:Playford portrait 38.jpg has no source information

Image:Parliament house sa.jpg has no source information

--Peta 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All have been updated; the first picture is a government photograph and it is 50 years since it has been taken, and therefore is out of copyright (expired in 2006). michael ^talk 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The records search link doesn't work; images from the NAA should have item numbers or some other form of identification that could be added to the image page. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. --Peta 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not get the link to work but have provided all the information about the image that is available. michael ^talk 06:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - what I didn't like about this article has generally been fixed. Well done. JROBBO 06:15, 17 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.