Talk:Muckaty Station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my comments section by section as I go through the article.

Lead

The lead is a little on the short side to adequately summarise the article I think. There's nothing about the fauna, for instance.

Expanded. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not an image of the station that could be used for the lead?

No free one that I've found, and it is a loooong way from me (and just about everyone else - hence the waste dump). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Muckaty station, also known as Warlmanpa, is a pastoral lease operating as a cattle station". I've followed the link for pastoral lease but I'm very little wiser. How can Muckaty be a pastoral lease if it's now "Aboriginal Freehold land"?

Very good point. Sometimes "pastoral lease" is used as a kind of generic term, or continues to be used because people are used to it. It is in fact inaccurate, as you have correctly identified. I have tweaked the lead accordingly. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Original under traditional Indigenous Australian ownership ...". Presumably that should be "originally"?

Indeed. Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The land of Muckaty station was returned to Indigenous custodianship in 1999." Just the land? That implies there's something else that wasn't returned to Indigenous custodianship.

I see your point. Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly happy about the Easter Egg for low, but I'll leave that for you to ponder.

I know. I've made it slightly less egregious - now "low level" instead of just "low". hamiltonstone (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A site within Muckaty is currently being considered for Australia's low and intermediate-level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility." What does "currently" add here? There's a danger of this statement ageing as well, so perhaps best to say something like "as of 2010".

I don't know why i let myself get caught like that - i have often enough fixed it in other people's articles :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

Where does the name "Muckaty" come from?

I haven't been able to find anyting at all on this obvious question. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Muckaty pastoral lease was created in the late 19th century. By the 1940s the lessee was a Mr Fred Ulyatt. The lease was held by James and Miriam Hagan from 1982 to 1988 ...". These gaps seems strange. Nothing happened after the lease was created until the 1940s? Then another 40-year gap until the Hagan's took over the lease.

An expression about blood and a piece of rock comes to mind. Looking for more, I've got this from a 1999 source: "Older claimants remember walking over the country with their families when they were children and many were employed in the pastoral industry, either on Muckaty or nearby cattle stations". Nothing else to add so far. Will keep hunting. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spurred on by your questions, I have no read the two likely offline sources on the subject. Both have been used to provide context and are included in the article's bibliography, however neither mentions Muckaty by name, so I think I've got all there is to get short of working with original archival material. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The working cattle station was taken over by the Muckaty Aboriginal Corporation in 1991." Was it always a cattle station, right from when the pastoral lease was created?

Deleted "working" and added some more detail. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On 20 December 1991, the Northern Land Council lodged a claim for Muckaty ...". Reads a little strangely to me, as "for" implies "on behalf of", but that's clearly not what's meant. What about something like "claimed Muckaty on behalf of ..."?

Reworded. Kept the expression "lodged a claim" to make clear that this was the first step in a process. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Adelaide–Darwin railway, completed in early 2004, passes through the western part of Muckaty station. The Stuart Highway crosses the eastern part of the station." This is probably more appropriate for the Geography section.

This has been reorganised to put the highway in the correct historical location (linked to the 1870s telegraph route). The result is that the material is more 'historical' in nature overall. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

"The eastern parts of the lease form a stony plateau within the Ashburton Range." Is it correct to say that it's still a lease?

No. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The region is drained by an ephemeral waterway, Tomkinson Creek. The region is prospective for manganese ...". Apart from two consecutive sentences beginning with "the region", what does "prospective for" mean?

<scratches head> It is a standard expression in geology / mining circles meaning that the region is considered a good candidate for finding deposits of a particular mineral. I hadn't realised it was a specialised term but you are of course right. have reworded. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... but with an overstory of Corymbia bloodwood trees", What does "overstory" mean?

Similar answer to the above - common term in biology to mean top layer of tree-type vegetation. Have provided a piped link. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... other mammal species such as the Short-beaked Echidna are predicted to occur on the station". Not certain what "predicted", means in this context. Someone looked into a crystal ball?

Not sure what to do here. It means biologists used a model based on things like known habitat preferences, environmental conditions and species range to predict the presence of a species in a particular area, even though no-one has been out to the site and set traps etc to see if it is actually there. Any suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded and added a couple more species. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive waste facility

This section is about one-third of the article, and it's the one I'm most concerned about, as it seems to give excessive weight to a current debate. It needs to be covered for sure, but in this much detail?

<laughs>Do you know how hard it was to piece together anything else about Muckaty station? The waste facility has been a highly newsworthy thing in Australia, particularly around 2007-2009. It is the only reason anyone other than a few hundred Indigenous people and anthropologists have ever heard of the place. I was worried the waste dump wasn't given enough space. Clearly I should put that concern aside... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ngapa clan members have volunteered a four square kilometre area to be considered for the facility". How does that work? There are seven Indigenous groups presumably sharing ownership of the land, but one has the authority to offer four square kilometres to the Australian government for use as a nuclear waste dump?

Not intuitive, but results from the nature of traditional Indigenous land ownership. I have made two changes to try and make this clearer, but I don't know if they are enough for a lay person. Feedback? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me now, I think we can say this is a wrap. Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.