Talk:Margaret Reid (politician)

Margaret Reid (politician) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Review: January 2, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Margaret Reid (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women in Green: Around the World in 31 Days

This article was created or improved during the Around the World in 31 Days GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in October 2024. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green

Untitled

No-one called Margaret Reid has ever stood for a House of Representatives seat. It is possible that she stood in 1961 under another name, but since the anonymous user who wrote this article has not responded to my request to verify this statement, I am deleting it until it is verified. Adam 07:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't turn up anything either. Odd. Ambivalenthysteria 11:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A Margaret McLachlan was the Liberal candidate in Bonython in 1961. That might be her. I will check it out tomorrow. Adam 11:26, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

McLachlan was Margaret Reid's maiden name - so it's the same person, different name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.248 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Reid (politician). 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) 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Reid (politician). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110222093404/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/brief06.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/brief06.htm

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) 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Margaret Reid was appointed to the Australian Senate 20 years after losing an election for the House of Representatives?

Source: Valedictory speech at Parliament of Australia "The opportunity for me to become a senator ... I was appointed to this job at a joint sitting of the two houses of the federal parliament on 5 May 1981" and "Senator Reid has confidence in 'thriving city' " at Canberra Times "In 1961, she conducted her first electoral campaign, as the Liberal candidate for the Federal seat of Bonython, in South Australia." and 1961 legislative election results at Adam Carr's archive

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rheinsberg (story)

5x expanded by Reidgreg (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Is there another hook that can be proposed here? Politicians being appointed to or elected to positions after losing previously is very common and not at all unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the article, I'm surprised the following wasn't proposed:

ALT1 ... that Margaret Reid is the first woman to serve as President of the Australian Senate? (Source: "Rising Above the Genteel Rumble of the Pink Palace" Canberra Times at ProQuest 1016152950 (via Wikipedia Library) "She made Australian political history on August 20, 1996 when she became the first woman President of the Senate."

Although a "first" hook (a kind of hook that has been discouraged on DYK as of late), it is one that should be relatively easy to verify/support and thus not as an exceptional of a claim as most other "first" hooks. In addition, it's the highlight of her career, but more importantly, probably more interesting to a broad audience than just merely losing an election then winning/being appointed again later. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ALT1 looks good to me; I've added a source already cited in the article at that sentence (in the body). She had some other "firsts" (first and only president representing a territory, first female deputy president, and I thought first female whip though I'm not finding a source on that right now) but only included the major one so as not to emphasize this too much per WP:FIRSTWOMAN. I wouldn't put it in the lead sentence, but it seems fine to me for DYK. If there are objections, though, I don't mind withdrawing the nomination. I also piped women to Women in the Australian Senate if that's alright. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed now that another hook has been proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a strict reading of WP:5X means we should compare the size of the article before the removal of unsourced material (part of its recent edits by the nominator) to its size after the nominator's expansion. By that standard, the readable prose size has gone from 2046B to 5393B, far from a 5X expansion. ALT1 is ok, QPQ has been done, and although Earwig found some similar phrases none looked problematic to me. So only the size is a problem, but it is a problem. Is it reasonable to expand the article much farther to roughly double its present size, or is that beyond reach? If it can be expanded, I still need to do a more careful source check. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! I believe it's beyond reach to expand it much further. There might be something about charity boards and local ACT groups she's worked with (there were apparently very many of these) but I didn't find good enough independent sourcing to cover that. Likewise, the coverage of her legal career is thin but I didn't find any independent commentary on it. I acknowledge that my removal of unsourced material prior to the 7-day expansion period could be seen as gaming the system. If it's no good, the article is a GAN and will hopefully get a review during this month's Women in Green drive. Up to you whether you want to pass, fail, or hold it pending a GAN review. Or I could ping you for a review after GAN, if that would work better. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's hold off until after the (I hope trouble-free) GA review. To avoid confusion with dates it might be best to make that as a new nomination once it passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Reid (politician)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 13:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article, good luck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Discussion

The image definitely passes, it has a usable copyright tag and is captioned appropriately. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any edit warring recently at all. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also isn't being constantly updated. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This means it passes criteria number five. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig found no copyright violations. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any major amount of biased text. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no major gaps in the article, it has her early life, career, honours and personal life. I don't see what else would need to be added. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only grammatical errors I could find were a few missing commas, but I fixed those. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems focused on Reid, which is good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no major issues with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, or MOS:WORDS. The other two don't apply. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

Time for a spotcheck, I will check 8 citations at random. They will be; 6, 3, 13, 19, 7, 10, 17, and 11. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 needs to say she worked at Davies Bailey and Carter until 1981. It does here; "Now she is leaving her job with Davies Bailey and Cater, giving up a flourishing family-law practice, and resigning as president of the ACT Liberal Party; as the party's elected candidate to fill the late Senator John Knight's place she expects to be sworn in as Senator Reid early next month." and the article was made in 1981. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3 just needs too spell her name as Mc Lachlan and it does here; "Margaret McLachlan Lib 13,562 24.3 -04.1". History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13 needs to say she got the 2004 Officer of the Order of Australia for her service to the Australian Parliament and the community, led a 1996 delegation to Poland, and what committees she has worked on. It does and there is a whole section about it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19 needs to say she got the 1977 Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal (Australia) and 1987 Order of Polonia Restituta (Poland). It does here;

"Decorations

Awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal, 1977.

Awarded the Order of Polonia Restituta, 1987." History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 needs to say that Knight was the first ACT Senator and that Reid filled the vacancy created by his death. It does this here; "331st member of the Senate. 1st member of the Senate for Australian Capital Territory." and here; "Died in Office, 4.3.1981." History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 needs to say that the law for filling vacancies changed, it does in the section CHOICE OF A PERSON TO HOLD VACANT PLACE IN THE SENATE. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to 17. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 didn't work but I replaced it with one that does. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, the article has passed the spotcheck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job I am going to pass this article. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:09, 2 January 2025 (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.