This article is about an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community. I hope I have done it justice. The article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2017, and has been updated since then with various news reports regarding the memorialisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The Waterloo Bay massacre or Elliston massacre refers to a fatal clash between settlers and Aboriginal Australians in late May 1849 on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia which led to the deaths of a number of Aboriginal people, and forms part of the Australian frontier wars". This is quite a long sentence to have with little punctuation. I would recommend carving it up somehow, and perhaps take out "fatal" as you already refer to the deaths straight after. I'd also specify that the "settlers" were "European" or "British". Something like "The Waterloo Bay massacre, also known as the Elliston massacre, was a clash between European settlers and Aboriginal Australians that took place on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia in late May 1849. Part of the Australian frontier wars, it led to the deaths of several Aboriginal people." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second paragraph in the lede really covers two distinct topics: the disputed number of those killed, and the ways in which the massacre has been memorialised. I would suggest dividing that paragraph in two because of this. "An attempt in the 1970s to build a..." could easily start a third paragraph in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it make sense to move the sentence stating "Aboriginal people from the west coast of South Australia have oral history traditions that a large-scale massacre occurred." to before "In the 1920s and 1930s, several historians examined the archival record"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some very thick paragraphs in this article. I would recommend dividing a few of them up; I think that would make it more 'reader-friendly' and enhance the likelihood that they would actually read through the whole thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also recommend a more thorough use of sourcing. In "Background" for example, the first paragraph has four sentences at its end, all referring to slightly different things, before a citation appears. Even if it entails some duplication of referencing, I'd ensure that every separate statement has a citation after it. Otherwise it can look a little like certain parts are simply unreferenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done a bit of this, but in some cases the page ranges aren't wide, so I'd just be repeating the same citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Recorded Events" section also could really be improved with some additional citations as there are ten sentences there before the first citation appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good use of images. Any chance that we could find another one for the "Later accounts of a massacre" section? Or a textbox of some kind? It's not essential, but I think it would improve the overall aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"by Aboriginal people of the Nauo, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples." - "people... peoples". Bit repetitive. I'd change "Aboriginal people" to "Aboriginals", perhaps?
"was speared and clubbed to death by Aboriginal people". Some folk tend to favour active voice, and although I'm not necessarily one of them, active voice might be better in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"was unharmed and was found" - "was... was". Again, might be a way to avoid repetitious wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This frontier violence has been described as an undeclared covert war between settlers and Aboriginal people" - by whom? Think we need to be clear here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"it is likely that it resulted in the deaths of tens or scores of Aboriginal people." Can we make this claim in the lede? It seems a bit strong given the evidence at hand and seems to only be the opinion of Haines (an anthropologist rather than a historian, not that that disqualifies his opinion). I think at most we can probably say "several Aboriginal people". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can. Haines is the most recent scholar to look at it, so his view should be given greater weight than older accounts. We also have to take into account the Aboriginal oral history about it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We definitely need a citation straight after the following sentence: In 1993, Aboriginal people from the west coast were still relating their oral history regarding a massacre, with the recorder of these interviews, Pat Sumerling, stating that, "[a]s the Aboriginal oral tradition is of crucial importance to their culture, with traditions handed down from generation to generation, one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks great, Peacemaker67. Well done on all your hard work on this one. Very happy to support it as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A missing page number and a case of inconsistent information for one of the books listed in the bibliography that need to be addressed. Other than those, just a few take-it-or-leave-it quibbles that you can take or leave as you see fit.
Ref #28 (Thompson 1969) missing page number. This appears to be supporting the statement that Thompson published a book, which might not require a page number in itself, but the statement also goes into some specific details ("...which included the camp oven story and said that Geharty (spelled Gehirty in the book) was involved in rounding up Aboriginal people and driving them over the cliffs south of Elliston, resulting in 20 deaths") which does need page numbers if they are sourced to this book (it's not clear because another source is also cited for that statement);
You cite Parish to support the statement that he wrote The Real West Coast: A Picture of a Rumour-Damaged Country, but cite some details of what Parish wrote to Foster, Hosking and Nettleback. Could the latter not be sourced to support the former? This jumped out at me because you're citing a book but don't provide a page number. Not an issue, just curious.
No, the citation is there to verify that Parish wrote the book, the rest is what F, H & N say about its contents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technical checks
Petty pet peeve moment: I'm nowhere more OCD than when England is confused for the United Kingdom, as it is in the publisher location for Thompson's The Elliston Incident. Make of that what you will;
Details for Foster & Nettleback's Out of the Silence: The History and Memory of South Australia's Frontier Wars in the biblography are from two different editions of the book. The GBook link previews the 256(?)-page paperback edition with ISBN 978-1-74305-039-2, but the ISBN you provide appears to relate to the 401-page e-book edition.
A Gbooks and JSTOR search for waterloo bay massacre did not reveal anything to suggest that relevant sources have been missed.
Update: I noticed during the spotchecks that the ABC News article by Gage dated 19 May references research by the anthropologist Dr Tim Haines, commissioned by Elliston Council in setting up the memorial. Is there any reason why this isn't mentioned in the Authenticity and interpretations section? It doesn't look like it adds anything significantly new to what has already been written, but it does bring it up to date. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lingzhi's checks prompted me to do some of my own. Unfortunately, GBooks previews don't allow me access to the relevant chapter in the main source used, so my ability to complete a thorough check is somewhat limited to the news articles. I found nothing in these of major concern, though to nitpick somewhat, the ABC News article by Gage published 19 May does not appear to explicitly state that the memorial was established in May 2017;
I do have access to the first pages of Foster et al books, and found that in the Background, second para, you cite Foster & Nettelbeck (2012), but quite sure it should be Foster, Hosking & Nettelbeck (2001).
There's a bit at the end about "one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims" that Foster et al attribute to someone named Pat Sumerling on pg. 71. Especially since this is presented as a direct quote, poor Pat will be unhappy that he/she (gender neutral name!) has not been given any credit on the huge forum of Wikipedia. Full attribution required.
Healy said the bit about "narrative battlegrounds", not Foster et al. The latter cite the former. But it seems there's a Chris Healy and a JJ Healy... mmm... another book cites it to jj ... seems to be on page xv of ((cite book|last=Healy|first=John Joseph|title=Literature And Aborigine in Australia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qu4wAAAAIAAJ|year=1989|publisher=University of Queensland Press|isbn=978-0-7022-2150-7|ref=harv)), if "Movement and Belonging: Lines, Places, and Spaces of Travel" has it right, and I assume it does...
I am beginning to wonder about close paraphrase. For example, Wikipedia has:
Foster et al. also interviewed Aboriginal people from the west coast on several occasions about the incident, with broad agreement in several aspects; the location near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs, and additionally, that not all of the people died, but the majority hid at the base of the cliff until the settlers left.
.. while Foster et all p. 71 has:
On several occasions the authors of this book have discussed memories of the Ellison incident with Indigenous people... the broad particulars coincide: the site near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs. We have heard one further detail: that not all of the people died, the majority hiding at the base of the cliff until the vigilantes left.
Close paraphrasing addressed. Very sloppy on my part. Concerned if you've identified any other examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just started looking and I am finding matters that concern me. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk) 13:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Portrait_of_James_Dugald_Somerville.jpg: if this is a news photo, why would it be Crown copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was donated to the State Library by News Limited, along with thousands of others, some of which are still in copyright. This one isn't though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When did that happen and what were the terms of the donation? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, to me especially in light of recent events involving Australian immigration policy... Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if Aboriginal people and white settlers could be linked at first mention outside the intro.
Aboriginal Australians was already linked in the Background, added link to History of South Australia for European settlers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say British settlers in the intro, but white settlers in the article body. Isn't it best to be consistent? If you just say British, "white" would be superfluous.
"Horn and his men opened fire, and two Aboriginal people were killed and one was fatally wounded, with several more being captured." Why is this stated as fact, when it is apparently unknown? You could specify earlier in the section (besides just the title) if this is just the official record of the events.
"written by Henry John Congreve" Can he be presented somehow? What was his occupation, and how come he was in a position to get this published?
done, and discovered he has a Dictionary of Australian Biography entry, so redlinked as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"According to Foster et al." et al is awkward in main text. I suggest spelling out "Foster, Hosking and Nettelbeck" in some places, varied with "Foster and his co-authors" in others.
"Foster et al. have identified several inconsistencies in Beviss' account. Firstly, Geharty did not name Waterloo Bay" If you have "firstly" then you should have secondly. May be delete and have "account:" ("account" followed by a colon) with clauses separated by semi-colons to make clear that they are all points made by the authors.
"The presence of adjacent landmarks with gazetted names associated with the Duke of Wellington's defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, such as Wellesley Point and Wellington Point, contradict this interpretation." This does not follow. It is possible that the names Wellesley Point etc gave someone the idea of naming Waterloo Bay after the supposed massacre.
I've gone back to the newspaper article and tweaked the wording to better reflect it. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"four professional or amateur historians" Should be and not or and I suggest specifying which are amateur and which professional.
Done the first bit. Foster, Hosking and Nettelbeck don't specify which ones fit each description. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a placeholder for now... I'd intended to review earlier but time was against me; a lot of heavy lifting's probably been done now so hopefully it won't take me too long, but don't hold up closure on my account if everyone else is happy with promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll aim to complete my review and copyedit this weekend but prose-wise I guess the main thing that leaps out is the frequent repetition of "Aboriginal people". I gather that "Aborigines" may not be as acceptable as it was even a decade ago but you do use it at least once... As a better option, do any sources name the clan/s involved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Ian. AFAIK, Aboriginal people is the appropriate description (per the plaque), rather than Aboriginals or Aborigines. I've only used Aborigines where is is used by the 1937 source and in the name of an organisation. Also AFAIK, which Aboriginal language group or clan was involved isn't clear, it may have been Mirning, Nauo, Kokatha and/or Wirangu people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back... Yes, "Aboriginal" as a noun is not correct and I wasn't suggesting that, but I would like to think more could be done to ease the repetition. OTOH I don't really have time to offer other suggestions so as it doesn't seem to be concerning other reviewers I'll reiterate that promotion shouldn't be held up on my account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]