Template:Did you know nominations/Asylum in Australia
- The following discussion 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: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Asylum in Australia
[edit].jpg)
... that the number of asylum seekers in Australia arriving via unauthorized boat (refugees pictured) jumped from 161 in 2008 to more than 17,000 in 2012?- ALT1: ... that in 2013 Australia announced it would no longer grant asylum to anyone arriving in the country without a visa (refugees pictured)?
- Reviewed: Tsuken Island
Created by ThaddeusB (talk), Shiftchange (talk). Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk) at 02:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC).
- This is a good article that would make a solid lead hook if it had an image to go along with it. I will give the nominators a little time if they want to look for one, otherwise I will complete the review shortly without one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is this hook accurate? Is 161 the total number of asylum seekers, or the number that arrived by boat without a visa? Are there asylum seekers that arrived by air? - Shudde talk 09:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have been unable to confirm either hook, because for the first the supplied source only mentions 161 asylum seekers not boat arrivals, and for the second there is no mention of visas. Gatoclass (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- The cited sources only states that those arriving by boat will not be granted a visa, so I suggest the following alt:
ALT2:- ... that in 2013 Australia announced it would no longer grant asylum to anyone arriving by boat without a visa (refugees pictured)? Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This should not run before the Australian election on September 7, 2013; asylum seeker policy is extremely controversial and the WP front page is not a place to stir this issue. The original hook is misleading as numbers move in waves, comparing to 2005/6 figures (or earlier) would paint a different picture. The recent announcements are going to be challenged in the courts if the current government is re-elected. EdChem (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the hook/article runs after the election it will probably be out of date, since if the opposition wins the current policy may well be dumped. I don't see the running of this article during the election as "stirring" as it's already a high profile issue, on the contrary it could be considered a timely nom that just helps provide some useful information. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Being a controversial issue is not a valid reason for holding/rejecting an article. Both facts are completely accurate - there is no reason for the jump asserted, so to call the hook deceptive is unfair (indeed numbers have risen every year during the time period, this is not cherry picking the low and high points). It is a fact plain and simple. If you prefer a different fact, suggest one, but objecting on the basis of not wanting the article shown before the election is not valid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. The opening line is "The right of asylum is a hotly debated political issue in Australia" which makes it appear like the article is meant to be foremost about the asylum debate in Australia. If this is so, one might consider renaming the article to Asylum debate in Australia. I find the second sentence in the lede to appear somewhat biased against the current policy. And I don't think the last part of the sentence is very good: "it has been suggested in many quarters that their policies are "an appeal to fear and racism"." This appears to be too much passive voice; it would be better to refer to human rights groups and others who oppose the policy. And there shouldn't be quotes around "an appeal to fear and racism" if it isn't attributed to someone specifically who has said this. Overall, it’s a good article, but with an emphasis on the polical debate, and less on the non-political issues. I don’t think sentences like “The debate has suffered from distortions and the use of incorrect and pejorative terms such as "illegal" and “The plight of asylum seekers in Australia was not aided by racist rhetoric and actions following the September 11 attacks in the USA” should be stated in Wikipedia’s voice, though. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You were correct about those sentences - they presented a non-neutral POV as they were taken from POV sources uncritically and without attribution. (For the record, I wrote none of them.) I have fixed those and also rewritten the lead a bit to put less emphasis on the the political debate. That should address the title concerns, but see also Abortion in the United States which starts "Abortion in the United States, and abortion-related issues, are the subject of intense public and political debate and discussion in the United States" and note the lack of Abortion debate in the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Length and dates check out OK. Image license is OK. I didn't see copyvio issues; also I note that an earlier review found the article OK on that criterion. The election has passed, so those concerns are now irrelevant. ALT2 is good -- it's in the article and verified by cited source; original hook and ALT1 aren't good. --Orlady (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)