Talk:Parliament House, Canberra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Parliament House, Canberra was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of September 20, 2007.
Flag
Portal
 Parliament House, Canberra 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.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Parliament House, Canberra: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Other: Comments from ACID:
    • This article is very good and is just a bit away from promotion of status. If we place a bit more effort it will finally be worthy of the status. --Marlith T/C 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I completely agree, Parliament House, Canberra is a very important subject, and only needs some help from a few good editors to get it over the line. Dfrg.msc 05:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Martyman, I noticed your comment on Adam's talk page. I thought the map was rather imprecise, so far as pointing the location of Parliament House. A map with a smaller scale (say, the central Canberra area rather than the whole ACT) would be better. -- Chuq 09:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh well, no map then. Drawing a map of central Canberra with enough detail to be useful would be very hard work. Martyman 10:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Corrections

The Commonwealth acquired control over the land making up the ACT, but not ownership of already alienated parcels of land, for example the extensive holdings of the Campbell family. Land was purchased as it became available, but the final freehold parcel was not acquired until the 1990s.

The Victorian State Parliament voluntarily vacated their Parliament House - this was not forced on them. I recommend Gavin Souter's excellent "Acts of Parliament" as a history of the years up until 1988, including those early years in Melbourne. The State Parliament House actually wasn't that great as a meeting chamber, being poorly ventilated. Pete 09:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I have heaps of photos relating to Parliament House. See what you can do with them:

Aw C'mon, there's gotta be space for at least one shot of the lobby area with those hugh pillars!
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Where would you suggest? The article is pretty chocked full of photos now. When it gets expanded further it will have room to add more photos. The only thing I could suggest woul dbe to replace Image:ParlamentHouseACT.jpg but that would replace the only photo that shows the location of the building relative to old parliament house. --Martyman-(talk) 10:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah see what you mean, it's just those pillar's to me are one of the main features of the new Parliament House. Anyway I've uploaded two versions of the Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake.jpg, Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake02.jpg is a brighter version, and Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake crop.jpg is a closer crop. I like Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake02.jpg, as to me the composition is better and also the closer crop is pretty much 1:1 of the original photo and isn't that sharp/clear. --Fir0002 07:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the cropped version would probably look better as a thumb. But anyway I replaced the image in the article with Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake02.jpg there might be a few other article around that it would suit too. I agree the pillars in the foyer are an impressive design feature of the buildign and it would be nice if there was room to add them to the article. Unfortunatly they may hav eto wait until someone expands it further. --Martyman-(talk) 08:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
To me, as a non-Austrailian, the most striking photos of the Parliment House are the top-down aerial photos. Of course, I assume it's fairly hard to get a non-copyrighted photo...although I do know that, in the US, if a picture is taken by the government it cannot be copyrighted --that may not be the case here and I don't want to guess without knowing. Bobak 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's definately not the case in Australia.--nixie 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
With the way things are going, it would be nigh impossible to get such a shot from a member of the public. (Can you imagine? A chartered plane with a Wikipedia photographer on board flying to Capitol Hill?!) Dysprosia 22:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Mabye from a hot air balloon, they still fly over Parliament House.--nixie 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Don't drop the camera if you do ;) Dysprosia 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Layout

I was of the view that Parliament House is divided into 4 quadrants, one for the Prime Minister, with a courtyard, one for ..... - Matthew238 07:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The building is divided into four quadrants - the main entrance and Great Hall etc facing north-east towards the Lake, the Ministerial wing to the south-west, with the PM's office at the far end facing his courtyard, the House of Reps to south-east with its own entrance, and the Senate to the north-west likewise. Adam 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Featured Article

This article has great potential, I am making it my personal mission to make this a feaured article by the end of the Year. If no one wants to help me - fine. This article is important and deserves to be much better.

I have a Mission! User:Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 10:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out Palace of Westminster, United States Capitol and Michigan State Capitol as templates for any featured article drive.--cj | talk 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A to-do list might be a helpful way of breaking down the task. Happy to help on specified components.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Same goes with Old Parliment house! How could this be overlooked?

User:Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Im trying to get the Co-ordinates for Parliament House, but if any one has them tell me. United States Capitol has Co-ord's and it looks pretty proffensional.

Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Co-ords for Parliament House are shown in this image. I <3 Google Earth. Daniel.Bryant 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Added co-ords to article. Daniel.Bryant 08:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Beautiful peice of editing Dan. Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "At the request of the Victorian Parliament"?

The article currently states that: "Parliament met in the 19th century edifice of Parliament House, Melbourne, at the request of the Victorian State Parliament...". Is this actually correct? (and con somebody provide a reference?). Or perhaps was it at the invitation of teh Victorian Parlaiment, or alternatively, did the Federal Parliament request that it be able to meet in the Spring St Building, meaning that the Vic parliament had to go elsewhere. While the statement may be correct, it doesn't seem right, and I think it should be referenced. -- Adz|talk 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Major Consultants on the Parliament House Project

I made this template for use here:

Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can now expand. Dfrg.msc 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flagpole Material

From the article: The flagpole weighs 220 tonnes and is made of polished stainless steel from Newcastle, New South Wales. It is one of the largest stainless steel structures in the world.

I seem to remember being told on tours of Parliament House that the flagpole is made of aluminium. Does anyone have any reliable references for the material the pole is made from? (I did a bit of an internet search, but can't find anything relevant that doesn't refer back to this article.) --jjron 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is stainless steel. It is 81 meters high from the roof to the flag. John

[edit] Marble in Foyer

Also on a tour a guide told us a few years back that some/all of the marble in foyer was sourced from near Benambra, Victoria, which is near where I live. Can anyone help me with any information on this as I would like to add it to the Benambra article. --jjron 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jron, in response to your question, all the marble in the foyer comes from overseas. The gray/green marble in the collums is Italian (Chippolino?) the pink marble comes from Portugal, the white marble in the foyer floor is also Italian and the black Limestone on the floor with the geometric design is from Belgium. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article need sources

Sources should be readily available for many of the facts in this article. Please see WP:V. I've tagged the most controversial or "exact quote"-like of the claims with the {{cn}} tag. I tagged very liberally and many of these facts could be covered by one or two broad sources. I'm not saying all these claims need to be sourced to be a good article, but you need to at least tag the hard numbers: dates, sizes, counts, and dollar amounts. You also need to have several sources before going up for good article review again. I encourage you to go ahead and do so and look forward to this article being a good article. -Weston.pace 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can sources be found? All I get from google are tourist guides and not much help to the article. Marlith T/C 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Internet is not the be all and end all. The Parliament House is the subject of substantial literature. --cj | talk 01:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that most of the things stated here come from people who have taken the tour. Marlith T/C 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If someone there can work on citing the tour that'll be great. Since I am out here in SF. Marlith T/C 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll do what I can. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Parliament House section ought to be taken out

This article is about new parliament house. Not old. Marlith T/C 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to merge a little bit of it into "History". Dfrg.m$c 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be better to have Parliament House, Australia to list all the houses of Federal Parliament used since federation, and then articles on old and the present houses? Wongm (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Alignment

Can we align all the images left? At the moment, they are breaking up the text and headings. Dfrg.m$c 23:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

I am having trouble finding resources, does anyone know a good encyclopedia we can use? Marlith T/C 04:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, online is a good bet over one. Dfrg.msc 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Check List

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.


  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
    • (a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
    • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
    • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
    • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
    • (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
  3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


  • The think I feel have been addressed are crossed off. Lets work on the others. Dfrg.msc 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [citation needed]

The [citation needed]s have been up for quite a while. What ought we do to it. Should we remove the facts with {{Fact}} tags on them to possibley promote this article, or keep it in and possibly place some misinformation in the article? Marlith T/C 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can get a bit of both. Some facts should really be kept, but just can't be verified. I'll take a look. Dfrg.msc 00:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It's strange the first half is riddled with {{Fact}}'s but the rest has little or none. I'm not sure what to do. Dfrg.msc 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we remove unneeded info with {{Fact}} tags. Marlith T/C 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be ready for a peer review in a few months. Marlith T/C 05:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "state capital" avenues

I want to get in somewhere the fact that radiating out from Parliament House are major avenues each of which is named after a different state capital and oriented in its direction, and that Adelaide Avenue is the location of The Lodge. But this information doesn't seem to fit neatly anywhere in the article. Any suggestions? -- JackofOz 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

ABC has a neat picture of parliament house under construction in a current article. (Click the picture for a bigger version.) Perhaps it qualifies for use in Wikipedia under fair use, on the basis that it is significant but irreproducable? The picture shows the extent of the building underground and how it is built into the hill. I don't watch this page as a matter of course, so if the maintainers of this article agree that it can be used, it's probably best of one of them uploads it. John Dalton (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)