Wikipedia:Peer review/John Curtin/archive1

John Curtin

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished add references to the page. It should pass GA now, but I can't help think it could stand a great deal more improvement. Curtin is often regarded as Australia's greatest prime minister, and the only one from Western Australia. The article is listed as a level 4 vital article.

Thanks, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, I don't usually work on politics-related articles, but as this has been sitting here awhile, I thought I'd take a quick look. Most of my comments are pretty superficial, though, I'm sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• at five paragraphs, the lead is one paragraph too many per WP:LEAD. Suggest combining a couple if possible
• He became the first and only prime minister to come from Western Australia: I wonder if this needs an "as of" caveat?
• on a RAAF Dakota escorted: not sure if the abbreviation has been introduced formally in the article. If deemed not necessary, it should probably be "an RAAF"
• would remain a record --> "remained a record"
• possibly overlinked terms: Frank Forde, Australian Labor Party, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Perth,
• I wonder if the footnotes also need citations -- these days, I've seen this requested at A-class or higher, so it might be an idea to add them before you get to that venue
• (incredibly minor nitpick): in the References, the puncutation in the titles of the two works by Edwards are slightly different (colons and hyphens in different spots). Suggest replacing hyphens with dashes and making the colons consistent
• in the References, suggest adding an endash for the date range in the title of Hasluck
• in the References, there is no need for "retrieved 25 March 2019" for the Hasluck entry
• same as above for Wigmore
• in the References, is there an OCLC number for Wigmore?
• in the Further reading section, there are minor inconsistencies in presentation. For instance some entries have full stops after the bracketed year, while others have commas or no punctuation at all. Suggest using the cite templates for consistency
• in the Popular culture section, is there a reference for the first entry?
• regarding the Popular culture section, do the sources indicate the significance of these appearances/entries, or are they just passing coverage? If the latter, I suggest removing the section altogether

---

Comments: I think the bare bones of the article are pretty good. Just about everything is sourced and the article is mostly complete in terms of facts. A few things to improve:

• Lack of discussion about Curtin's family life - there's a single sentence about his marriage, but nothing about his married life or his children
• Lack of discussion about Curtin's alcoholism - mentioned three times, but the bios that I've read give this aspect of his life a lot of attention.
• Ditto for his religious beliefs - one sentence, doesn't discuss why he left Catholicism.
• No mention of Curtin's role in unifying the different ALP factions in the late 1930s.
• The "Homefront policies" section - way too much detail. The article is about Curtin not about the minutiae of Australian social policies. There are six paragraphs where Curtin's name isn't even mentioned. I'd either merge them to the Curtin Government article or just axe them.
• Just in general, we need to make sure the article focuses on Curtin and doesn't become a general history of Australia during WW2. Yes, prime ministers get the credit for whatever their government does, but if we're going to have several sentences on a policy achievement we should take care to tie it to Curtin personally and show that it's his achievement.
• 1944 referendum - see above, too much detail.
• Curtin had several big personalities in his government - Chifley, Evatt, Calwell, Forde, Ward to name a few. They're barely mentioned in the article. Evatt isn't mentioned at all despite playing a huge role in the government, and Chifley is only mentioned when he succeeds Curtin as PM. The article should definitely talk about this dynamic - I'm sure I've read about Curtin being praised for keeping all these personalities in check.
• "Legacy" - what exactly is this section? At the moment it's a jumble. I'd suggest dividing it into an "Evaluation" section (he's regular ranked among our greatest prime ministers, let's say why) and something that lists honours, namesakes, etc.
• "In popular culture" - do we do these sections anymore? Possibly merge to "Legacy" section
• Sources - I don't have anything against online sources, but there are some great books about him and we should try to make better use of them. The contemporary newspaper sources should be replaced by secondary sources if possible. I've sort of approached this from the perspective of 'what would this look like if it were a featured article?'. In terms of a GA nomination, I'd say that the excess detail on social policies is the only big thing that needs to be dealt with. I did a bit of work on the "Early life" section a while back and I'd like to do more at some point. I find it hard with these big biographies to know where to start sometimes, you basically just have to break it down section by section. Or find one biography that you really like and build the article around that. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughtful comments. They are much appreciated. As it happens, your view of the article and what it needs is almost identical to mine. I agree completely with the bits you flagged as needing expansion, especially the alcoholism and family life (which with luck will not be such touchy subjects in the 21st century). I don't want to axe the Home front section, but it needs to be about Curtin and not just a history of Australia in WWII. The same goes for the military section, although it is in a bit better shape. The Popular culture section can go, although some of it might be salvaged for the Legacy section (which I agree is a jumble). Same goes for the See Also section and Footnotes sections. You would think that for a such prominent figure we would have good biographies, but all I have is Day, Edwards and Ross, none of which I really like. This should still be enough to improve the article to FA standard though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)