Talk:Lang Hancock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Lang Hancock has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Lang Hancock 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] My review
Fuddlemark, the Lead needs to be beefier, it's too short. Check out WP:LEAD for pointers.
The short paragraph problem mentioned on Peer Review is still there. That's a much-recycled classic FAC complaint. I've joined up a few of them — it looks better — but, since they were really pretty separate in content, it would be better to expand them, if possible.
There are a lot of uncited statements that aren't quite hard facts, and therefore need some attribution: that he was considered charming and charismatic, that he became disillusioned after selling the asbestos mine, etc. Naturally you can't have a footnote after every other sentence, but you might consider some kind of "covering note" in the footnote or references section, something on the lines of "Marshall, Debi, Lang Hancock (2001); all biogrqphical statements not specifically attributed to another source are taken from Marshall."
Incidentally, don't repeat information in the footnotes that's already contained in the References. Thus, don't give the year for Marshall's biography in note 2. Consider giving something useful instead: the page number.
Altogether: lovely little article, but I wish it were more detailed about the mining stuff and the political stuff. Your sources look like they would contain any amount of material, unless I'm running away with the wrong impression. You're gonna get complaints about length on FAC, and even I, a fan of conciseness, think there could well be a bit more. Not least to make a better balance between the private scandals (which are sufficiently covered) and the mining and politics. Yes, even though it's the scandal that people remember. Bishonen | 美少年 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Pro-nuclear mining in the 70s?
There is a blurb on Western Australia secession at Footnotes to History which describes Hancock in some strangely ruthless terms:
In 1974, the mining millionaire Langley George Hancock founded the Westralian Secession Movement, which aimed to revive Western Australia's independent spirit by opening vast new mineral riches to mining with nuclear demolitions and poisoning the water supplies of Aboriginal tribes. Hancock failed to make much of an impression. Since then, his most notable contributions to Western Australia have been contracting to supply Ceaucescu's Romania with steel in the 1980s and dying in 1992.
Irwin's cites Brittanica Online as his source for the WA blurb. Any corroboration to these statements? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have seen a lot of coy references to a fascination with nuclear weapons. And there was an article in some Communist rag about "the richest bastards in the world" or something along those lines in which Hancock was accused of wanting to murder Aboriginal children by poisoning their water. I think the nuclear plan is true, although he never even came close to going ahead with it (he was deeply offended by the anti-nuke movement). I haven't seen anything credible about poisoning Aborigines. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Class
I rated this as class=B. It is probably close to being GA with a good push. Just passing. Fred 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
