[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Hobart coastal defences

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleHobart coastal defences was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 3, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 4, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that an elaborate network of coastal batteries was built by British colonial authorities to protect Hobart Town, but it was never used to defend the Tasmanian port from attacks by enemy warships?
Current status: Delisted good article

Pictures?

[edit]

Does anyone have pictures of Prince of Wales Battery, Prince Albert Battery, Alexandra Battery or Kangaroo Battery they can add? Rac fleming (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded two images of Alexandra Battery that may be useful. I'll let you decide if you want to use them and how to place them. Barrylb (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra Battery today


Panoramic view of Alexandra Battery today


Gun at Kangaroo Bluff Battery today

Another that I think would be really good on this article would be a map showing the location of each battery... Barrylb (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Nice pics! Just the thing. Thanks very much for that. Makes me a bit nostalgic actually, been a few years since I have been there...Rac fleming (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like them. The article inspired me to visit Kangaroo Bluff Battery today too, so I've added a picture from that. Barrylb (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination on hold

[edit]

Fail coz it's teh Daniel

On hold - stuff to do;

That be all. Go nuts on referencing, please. And leave a note on my talk page when you're done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failing it because it's me? Now, that would be a tad harsh :) Thanks for your comments. Daniel 09:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh, but justified. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 09:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
passed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo. My first GA. I am proud. Rac fleming (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hobart coastal defences/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

G'day, over all I think this is a pretty good article. I can see a lot of work went into it. However, I am listing this article for an individual good article reassessment in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. My main concern is in regards to the article's referencing standard. There are many places in the article that appear to be unreferenced. I marked these with "citation needed" tags about two weeks ago. (I also think page numbers should be added to the references.) According to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, the presence of "citation needed" tags is a grounds for a quick-fail. That said, I am very keen to see this article kept as a GA, so I will not quick fail the article. Instead, I intend to leave it on hold for the next week or so, to see if this review sparks interested editors who might be able to find the required references. I will then come back next week and make an assessment of the progress. I hope that those who are involved in the article are not disparaged by this. I certainly want to see it kept as a GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@42° South: G'day, not sure if you are still active, but if you are as the article's author, do you still have access to the references that you used putting this together? If so, would it be possible for you to add citations where I've marked them? If you can, I'd be more than happy to reaffirm the article's GA status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the nominator's concern about referencing. Whilst this article does a good job of covering a very interesting topic it doesn't meet the requirements for referencing to remain a GA in its current state. Given that it seems to be a fairly specialized topic it would probably require the attention of an expert as well so I think unfortunately this will probably need to be delisted unless the original author returns. I will of cse go through the article and see if I have any sources in my limited collection but it is probably unlikely. Anotherclown (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further issues: another issue I see is that the lead doesn't comply with WP:LEAD, being more than four paragraphs. I've edited it to (crudely) fix this, but it might be better resolved by someone with more expert knowledge. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a little bit of copy editing today as some of the prose seemed like it needed some work. With regards to citations, thank you for your efforts, @Anotherclown:. Do you think you will be able to get the other missing citations, or do you think the article should just be demoted? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gday mate. I have managed to track down a copy of Dollery, E.M. (April 1967). "Defences of the Derwent". Papers and Proceedings (Tasmanian Historical Research Association). Volume 14 (No. 4): 148–164 through the State Library and whilst it provides some refs, unfortunately the narrative there seems to follow a fairly different course than this article and often they focus on different events. As I lack anymore than a basic understanding of the topic I am unable to reconcile the two sources. As such I don't think I'm going to be able to find all the missing refs short of a major research effort and probably a re-write which I'm just not in a position to undertake with RL commitments at the moment. When I have a chance I intend to continue trying to add refs where I find them and making some small changes, but nothing that is going to get this up to standard. As such unfortunately my advice is to delist. Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, thanks for that. I will delist now as unfortunately it doesn't seem likely that the issues will be rectified in the near term. Once they've been fixed, I'd be happy to re-assess for GAN again if someone pings me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hobart coastal defences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration is wrong

[edit]

The illustration of the battery locations is wrong and misleading, unfortunately the author of the illustration is uncontactable as the account is no longer active.

1. The Mulgrave battery location is completely wrong. The location as marked is the location of the proposed Mona Battery, named after the street that ran down to the location, it was planned but never built. If you go to the government library site (https://www.linc.tas.gov.au/Pages/Home.aspx) and type in 131821480 in the search box you will see a 1839 map that shows the Mulgrave Battery in the bottom left corner. Type in 136187713 to see an 1829 map of the location. 2. The Prince of Wales Battery is wrong. It was directly below the Albert Battery, not as shown in the illustration. 3. The Albert Battery is wrong, it is too far inland and misplaced. 4. The location of Anglesea Barracks is wrong. 5. The location of the Alexandra Battery is wrong. 6. The location of the Queen's Battery is wrong, but that section of the map appears odd as well; it appears vertically stretched compared to actual maps and contemporary aerial images.

The question is if this misleading and inaccurate illustration should be deleted until a better map is put up, or should it remain and continue to mislead and misinform people? 123.3.237.96 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, you might be able to request help updating the map if you post a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AustralianRupert, I am asking around for a map maker.
In the meantime I have also found out that the battery depicted in the current illustration to the north of the city, outside Government House, is also completely wrong. There was never a battery at that location, if you think about it it makes no sense. The mistake has been made in that there was a gun battery outside Government House, called the Denison battery, but that battery was only extant between 1855 - 1860ish. At that time Government House was actually in Hobart, in a location covering part of Franklin Square, Elizabeth Street and the Council building. The Denison battery faced straight out over the harbour between what is now the Elizabeth Street pier and the Brooke St pier. Government House was relocated in 1858 to where it is now and the one in the city was demolished by 1863. The last mention of the Denison battery is in 1860 but as Franklin Square was being built, Elizabeth St being made, and Government House gone the battery was redundant and removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.237.96 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Battery dates.

[edit]

The Albert battery was condemned and removed by 1881. In 1882, the land was handed over to the Hobart City Council for use as a park. But by 1885 the locations of the Albert battery and Prince of Wales battery was a quarry, the reason given that they gave a good source of bluestone chips for road surfacing as material sourced from further away was too expensive. The debate went on until the COuncil relented and made the park. This link is to contemporary news source that mentions the commencemnet of blasting in the quarry in 1885, under the headline at the very top of the page as 'PRINCE'S PARK QUARRY':

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9101275 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.237.96 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hobart_coastal_defences&oldid=1224860516"