Talk:Inspiring Australia

Inspiring Australia

Hi, can this new article be flagged with any portal-custodians looking after this sort of information. I would be guessing the page might have sections on its various activities. It would probably not need links to its publications, as these are embedded in the referenced pages. What I was interested in was some sort of historical overview of this type of activity (Inspiring Australia) and the relative merits or not of Govt programs of this sort. Robertwhyteus (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going to mark this off as 'helped', because I'm not quite certain that what I did was exactly what you were asking for (I didn't change the content at all), but I did apply the appropriate flags and WikiProject Banners to raise the visibility of this article to editors who will hopefully be able to improve it in the direction you were looking for. Revent (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the template, as I agree that is what I - think - you meant. If it isn't, feel free to re-open it and clarify your question. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and flagging possible COI

Hi, thanks, I think the page is progressing well and I am glad editors have been informed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have been appointed an Inspiring Australia Reporter in Queensland, but it is not my job to promote IA, so I don't think there are any COI issues. Happy to be guided here. My Wiki-editor role in the topic is to present balanced factual accounts, without hype or excess. IA's charter as I see it, is the same as Wikipedia's, being the presentation of factual truth, just getting the info out there about science, not putting spin or promoting Australia improperly. This is which its role is facilitating science COMMUNICATION, (not PROMOTION). Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I didn't have the slightest impression of a potential COI, and to be honest given the 'topic' of this article I doubt the subject isn't notable or would be trying to 'self-promote' on Wikipedia...it wouldn't IMO really make much sense given the 'goals' of the organization.

Your 'description of your role' in relation to them as you describe it kinda obviates any concern (at least on my part) that you actually do have a COI with promoting them, either. Some brillant piece of investigative journalism uncovering their massive corruption would probably be much better for furthering your career. :P Revent (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! and I agree with you. Any massive corruption I uncover, you'll hear about it here first ;-p A couple of flags have appeared on the page. I don't know if they are warranted, they may have been edited when the page was in a poor state due to a Nasty Safari Crash (NSC). Would you be able to have a peek? Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that was me just adding those, see my comments below. Understand, they aren't saying it's 'bad', just marking it certain types of changes (I wasn't 'assuming' that you were going to respond so fast) :P Revent (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Improvment suggestions

I added a couple of 'citation needed' flags to specific points...there are 'explanations' in the templates. It's not that they are 'dubious or controversial', just the kinds of things that should be sourced.

To explain the 'context' and 'primary sources' flags, the article needs to be referenced to secondary sources that discuss it's "effect and relevance", not just the quotations..by the dates, the sources you are using are all from near the beginning of the initiative, and not anything from later showing the actual 'results' of their work (this would also provide 'evidence of notability' by showing that other people found the subject worth writing about). As it is now, the article mainly just proves existence...the notability isn't yet 'verifiable'. Revent (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• And I'll be happy to state that the 'phrasing' of text of the context flag kinda sucks for the 'sense' in which I used it here, though the /word/ "context" means what I meant (sigh). Revent (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks it's great to get the help and guidance. You may be right about the notability, despite the $21million budget allocation, there's precious little good analytical material out there looking at this program and is success (or not). Still digging! ;-p Robertwhyteus (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• (chuckles) Actually, I'm not really doubting notability, kinda for that exact reason....if it's a total flop, I'm pretty certain it's a notable one. This clearly isn't a 'delete as non-notable' topic, at least in my opinion, it's just a 'baby' article. Major government initiatives do tend to get secondary coverage, after all, even if just think tank reports about "Lessons learned from this total fail." Three years on, I'm sure it's been talked about. Good work so far, by the way. Revent (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• PS if I feel the page is starting to look like it's edited sufficiently well to answer the citations, references, notability, and current day issues do I take off the flags or wait till someone else does? Robertwhyteus (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You can remove cleanup flags if you feel that the 'issue' has been addressed...it's just an issue with the new people that seem to think they are vandalism or something, and take them off without trying to fix things. Revent (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good enough to go, but not finished yet

Hi I removed {{context|date=July 2013}} {{primary sources|date=July 2013}} but feel free to replace or any other guiding comments. Robertwhyteus (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't glanced back for a day or two...just so you know, you can 'ping' a user by mentioning them like this.. User:Robertwhyteus... I have a silly big watchlist.

I'm going to reassess this as a 'start class'...it's long enough to not be a stub, now. You might want to take a look at WP:REFBEGIN, specifically the part about citation templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc. Using those will help get the 'missing' metadata on the references without having to try to write them longhand..it's better to have the full info on a citation, instead of just a link (for printed wikipedia, or if the page gets moved). There's a bit of dicussion about it at WP:LINKROT. Revent (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, my watch list doesn't work anymore, I don't know why, so it's manual, I have to actually go have a look at the page in question. I will certainly look at WP:REFBEGIN, I have a lot to learn. Meanwhile I am trying to get a project up so the Australian Government uses Wikimedia Commons for science images. Might take a while. Thanks again for your kind help. PS other people (unknown to me) have lobbed in and added a heap pf good stuff but it's still overly reliant on a relatively small number of primary sources. Robertwhyteus (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inspiring Australia. 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/20160304085223/http://www.science.org.au/reports/documents/ElectionPolicy2013.pdf to http://www.science.org.au/reports/documents/ElectionPolicy2013.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)