Talk:John Chanter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
John Chanter 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-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
|
|||
[edit] Concerns over references and tone
This discussion has been moved from User talk: Gorgan almighty.
Could you please outline your concerns with John Chanter? I had asked someone to check it over (an experienced editor) and they said it was fine. I can understand the references (although the one cited is extremely reliable) but I would appreciate knowing your concerns about style. Thanks. Frickeg 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Although the single reference cited may be extremely reliable, there is no indication in the article as to whether it supports all of the information given. To rectify this, you should use in-line citations, each one pointing to a reference that verifies particular facts in detail. Ideally there should be more than one reference, no matter how reliable it is. But if necessary, the same reference can be referred to in-line several times (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for information on how to do this).
- As for the tone of the article, my concern is that at certain points it is written in a very laid back, journalistic style. For example:
- "Chanter's loyalty to Labor was to prove short-lived, however, for in the split over conscription in 1917 he rejoined his former colleagues and other Labor defectors to form the Nationalist Party."
- Wikipedia articles should normally be written in a more formal tone. For example, you could write:
- "As a result of the dispute over conscription in 1917, Chanter left the Labor party and, with several other former Labor members, formed the Nationalist Party".
- I know it doesn't sound quite as exciting, but it's more appropriate for Wikipedia. I hope that helps.
- —gorgan_almighty 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Style-wise, is that better? Frickeg 02:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was better, but there was still a lot to do, so I've made some more changes. The tone is okay now, but the article still needs to be properly referenced. I also question the suitability of the content of this article. A lot of it reads like a running commentary of Chanter's victories and defeats, which isn't very encyclopedic. Also, in my mind there still isn't enough to assert notability of this person. I'm not saying he isn't notable enough for inclusion, but the article doesn't exactly betray his lasting impact very well. I would recommend addressing that, but remember that any additions you make must not be original research. Have fun. —gorgan_almighty 10:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Style-wise, is that better? Frickeg 02:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
