Talk:April 1865 Bruce by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


B class criteria[edit]

J947, regarding your query on my talk page ("What do you think is needed in the April 1865 Bruce by-election article to get it to B-class?"), I've added a B-class checklist to the WPNZ template above. The only area that needs work is coverage of the topic; this is how I see it:

  • 'Background' is fine
  • 'Overview' is where most work is needed. At the moment, it's really just about the nomination meeting. When did print media start reporting on possible candidates? When did the various candidates put their names forward? What candidate meetings were held, and when? Did candidates other than Clapcott pull out of the competition?
  • 'Candidates' is fine, but once we've done the above, this would come earlier.
  • 'Election' could be expanded.
  • We ought to have a section that covers what happened after the by-election.

But if you want to put more work in, why stop there? Why not go for GA? The difference isn't massive. Nice supporting material, which would not be needed for B class and isn't essential for GA either, would be a map showing the electorate in 1865 that also identifies the polling booths. And as an aside, we should give Clapcott his own article. What do you think? I'm certainly keen to chip in. Schwede66 02:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I was thinking of first getting the article to B-class to make way for GA. Thanks for the advice! J947 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Here is a source which you could expand the article with. J947 05:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Do you think the info about the public meeting that happened during the run-up for the election should be included in the article? I recently put some of it in per WP:BOLD. J947 08:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per what I said above about 'Overview'. Anything that happened in regards to the by-election is within the scope of this article. I hope to have time later today to read some contemporary newspaper to find out what else happened. Schwede66 23:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: The meeting wasn't directly in regards to the by-election; it was just a coincidence that the meeting happened during the by-election campaign. J947 00:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You will have seen that I'm doing some work on this, if ever so slowly. I'll work through it chronologically and when I get to the meeting, I'll do what needs doing. Schwede66 06:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Progress:
  • Background:  Already done.
  • Run up to the election:  Done.
  • Nomination meeting:  Done.
  • Public meeting: Not needed.
  • Candidates:  Already done.
  • Election:  Done.
  • Results by polling booth:  Done.
  • Aftermath:  Done.
  • July 1865 by-election:  Done.
  • 1866 election:  Done.
J947 03:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Updated 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC). Updated again 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the 'Public meeting' section would be needed for B-class. J947 03:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, do you think the article's ready for B-class? The prose size is 9,659 bytes, compared with 9,274, 5,967, 9,466, and 4,540 bytes. The total byte count is 20,220 bytes, compared with 18,995, 17,338, 21,173, and 13,473 bytes. J947 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples of by-election articles:

Hope this helps. Schwede66 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at those articles. J947 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look. J947 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, thank you for your thorough and constructive GA review. That's much appreciated. And congratulations to J947 for getting your first article to GA class. Well done. What's next? Schwede66 17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Sorry, very belated, must of not noticed on my watchlist. I've been inactive for a while and decided to return to content creation. Anyways I've got a lot of options:
I'm not sure which one to do right now, but I'll probably try and get around all of them and get them to C or more. I'd appreciate your opinion on which one to do at the moment. J947 (c), at 05:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: Welcome back, mate. It's been a year! Well, that's a steep questions; really depends on your interests. I find it interesting to work on an election article at the same time as on a related bio, so maybe go for the 1860 Suburbs of Auckland by-elections / Joseph Hargreaves combo. I agree that splitting those by-election articles is the (ultimate) way to go. Schwede66 09:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll do that. Probably gonna start work on it around mid-March. J947 (c), at 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice?[edit]

Maybe we should add an edit notice to this page explaining about the use of 'Tokomairiro' instead of 'Milton' or 'Tokomairaro'; as that's what is being used all over the page except for the explanation in the first paragraph of the 'Nomination meeting' section. J947 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go for it. Schwede66 02:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: I'm pretty sure that can only be done by admins. J947 02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in that case, I didn't understand what you had in mind. Can you point me to the right policy, please? But why wouldn't we just explain the situation in prose? Schwede66 02:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME
it appears that at that time (at least by the newspapers) the wording 'Tokomairiro' was more common than 'Tokomairaro', and I don't see why we should call it 'Milton' when at the time it wasn't called that. We already have in the first paragraph of the 'Nomination meeting' sub-section. J947 03
04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I mean about "edit notice". Schwede66 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: WP:EDN. J947 05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've certainly not been on that page before. Schwede66 07:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Reaffirming after 9 days. J947 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really aren't sure that it's needed. But if you want to draft such a notice, I shall put it up (if only to try out something new). And by the way, I will expand this article further, but got sidetracked. Schwede66 19:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Done at my alternative sandbox. J947 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had it on my watchlist. Lets hope for a GA! :). J947 03:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drafting the editnotice. It's now in place. Schwede66 08:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Oops. Can you please add the word 'section' after the ''Nomination meeting'' text? J947 19:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyer[edit]

The Dyer contesting this election may not have been the same as William John Dyer, as this source from The Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle states that the first two initials in Dyer's name were J. C. Mentioning Schwede66. J947 20:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Nah, the paper has got it wrong. They are talking about "J. C. Dyer, M.P.C.", where the abbreviation stands for Member of the Provincial Council. And the Otago Province has, over its history, had one member with the surname Dyer: William John Dyer (Scholefield, 1950, p. 220). At the time, Nelson was half a world away from Otago, as a telegraphic connection hadn't been made the length of the South Island by that time. After all, they reported on the nomination meeting a fortnight after it was held. They simply got it wrong. Schwede66 07:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bruce by-election, April 1865/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • which in those days was called Tokomairiro or Tokomairaro, as why the Court House is called that way: odd phrasing, and I don't really understand what it's trying to say.
  •  Done. Too much information and what I was trying to say didn't need to be said on reflection. J947 (c), at 05:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we care which news paper reported the returning office selecting a date?
    • Answer: We don't. I've removed the entire sentence as unneeded. ...And that was before I read your comment below. :) J947 (c), at 05:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops. Wasn't paying attention; didn't mean to make the same comment twice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was following a report by the Otago Daily Times on 23 March 1865 that the Returning Officer had selected that date: unnecessary detail, surely? Why do we care that a newspaper reported that this would be the date?
    •  Done. J947 (c), at 05:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You follow the order of Gillies' speech, in which he gives Burns' name at the end of the speech; I don't think it's necessary to do so. I wouldn't fail the article for this but it seems to be just a rhetorical device, and not really of encyclopedic interest. Up to you.
  • Meh. I'm not so happy with the wording of that sentence, but it wasn't due to that. J947 (c), at 06:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • some words as Henry Clapcott's representative, an action opposed by other electors: they opposed him speaking? After reading the source I was able to figure it out, but this paragraph is a bit hard to follow. I would suggest rewriting this as an explanation to a modern reader of the sequence of events; it currently reads as though you're trying to follow the spirit of the original newspaper article (e.g. "Laughingly").
  • which drew problems: unclear.
    • What is unclear about it? It seems good to me. J947 (c), at 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never heard the phrase "drew problems" so I wasn't sure what was intended. Do you mean Clapcott's post as Treasurer "drew comments [or complaints] that it would be a problem" (i.e. you're reporting that others claimed this), or are you stating that it was in fact a problem (in which case "drew" is not the right verb)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've heard the phrase before but can't seem to find it on Google Books. Anyhow I've removed most of that sentence as already said and unneeded for that section.  Done. J947 (c), at 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a couple of places there are comments that the province would be left without a functioning executive, but it also appears that election to the House of Representatives requires the resignation of the provincial seat, so the executive roles could be filled again. So it's not clear what the problem was.
  • Clapcott placed an advertisement on 5 April in the Otago Daily Times stating that he had withdrawn from the contest for the seat, meaning that the reason for the poll was then moot: why was it moot? There was only one vacancy, and two candidates, so the election had to proceed, didn't it?
    • Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalf explains it. J947 (c), at 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'm still not getting it. The poll they demanded was held on 8 April 1865. That was the actual election, not some separate poll. The election was not moot; there were two candidates and only one seat. What am I missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not say that the election was moot; I said that the reason for the poll was now moot; the reason for the poll was that supporters of Clapcott demanded it, and as Clapcott withdrew before the election the reason for the poll was then moot. J947 (c), at 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's what confusing me. Supporters of Clapcott demanded a poll on his behalf, which was held on 8 April 1865, then The election was held on 8 April 1865...the poll was then moot. However, the poll still proceeded, followed by the election results. So the poll happened on the same day as the election? But you give no results of the poll? The way it's written it looks as though the poll and the election are the same thing, but from your answers it appears that's not the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The poll is the election. I've clarified that. J947 (c), at 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              I finally figured this out; the election would not have been necessary had Clapcott's supporters conceded on 31 March. But why do you say the 8 April election was moot? It's true that if Clapcott's supporters had conceded there would have been no election, but the election included other candidates than Burns, and one of them might have beaten Burns and been elected, so it was not moot, was it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the "Aftermath" section seems irrelevant to this article. The only thing that would seem to be relevant is the length of time that Burns served, and perhaps the dates of the next by-elections.
  • the electorate was won by John Cargill: surely "the election", not "the electorate"?
  •  Done. J947 (c), at 05:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is not very strong; I've copyedited a few obvious infelicities but a good copyeditor would help, and in several places I wasn't sure of the intended meaning. I think the accounts taken from the newspaper of the electors' meeting need to be recast as modern explanations. The article seems comprehensive; I've no trouble believing there are few other sources. I'll place this on hold to give you time to work on these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • J947, have just returned from some holidays and can now lend a hand. Is there anything in particular that you'd like me to attend to? Schwede66 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schwede66: Maybe the seventh point down as you were the one that added that and I can't answer it. J947 (c), at 18:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to clarify that point. J947: there's one other outstanding point; see my last comment above about the word "moot". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. I'm just going to remove that part of the sentence as confusing. J947 (c), at 02:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good idea. I've struck the point above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the references at the end are out of alphabetical order. Other than that the only outstanding point is the question about why the province would be left without a functioning executive. To be honest, it's clear it was an issue from the sources, so I won't hold up GA for it, but it would be much better to explain why it's the case if that can be done so I'll hold on to see if Schwede66 can help. If not, I'll promote anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The alpha order issue has been fixed, so I'm going to promote. I would suggest clarifying the remaining issue if possible, but GA status doesn't need to wait for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:April_1865_Bruce_by-election&oldid=1198884181"