Talk:Edward Millen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEdward Millen has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Millen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Looks very good, but I have a few comments:[reply]

Early life[edit]

  • You might want to link or explain "land agent".
  • Exactly what sort of land reform did Millen espouse? The link doesn't help much.
    • Expanded - I couldn't find much on this. Frickeg (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State politics[edit]

  • Maybe some brief explanation of Australian federation would be useful to non-Australians in understanding the politics of the era. Just a sentence or two, nothing too elaborate.
    • Added a little bit at the start of the "state politics" section - how's that? Frickeg (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...elected in the second position" Are these multi-member districts? Some explanation, again, would help the non-Australian.

Minister for Repatriation[edit]

  • You might want to explain the job of the Minister for Repatriation. Was it just about demobilization, or did he deal with veterans afterward, too?
    • Almost exclusively veterans; the portfolio eventually became Veterans' Affairs. I've tried to clarify the wording a little. Frickeg (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of these on the weekend. Frickeg (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I probably won't be able to review them until then, anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues[edit]

  • These changes are all good. I'm a little concerned about how closely the "Early life" section follows the Rutledge article -- some of the sentences are very close to the source. I understand that there's going to be some overlap in a chronological history -- things happened in that order, no matter how they're sourced -- but a little re-arranging might help. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]