This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hobart coastal defences article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hobart 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)