Premier of Victoria

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at nominating this article as a Featured List. I welcome suggestions for improvements to the article to get it up to FL quality. Thanks, ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

First of all, I'm glad you're looking at taking this to FLC. I'm working on taking Premiers of Western Australia to FLC as well.

I think that the content at User:GMH Melbourne/Premier of Victoria should be added to this page. The current consensus is for there not to be a separate List of premiers of Victoria page, so given that, this article should contain all information at User:GMH Melbourne/Premier of Victoria. A split can be investigated later.

Is there any information on the characteristics of the premiers you could mention, similar to what I've done at Premier of Western Australia#Characteristics?

Steelkamp (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thank you for your comments. I was planning on expanding the history section of the article in my user space to include more about post-federation history of premiers, as well as other details (similar to your Premier of characteristics section for the WA premier). I will merge the articles now and work on expanding the history section over the next couple of days. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JML1148

Love seeing politics articles, especially Australian politics articles, being improved, so thanks for your work. Picked up on a number of things:

• Clarify what 'command confidence' is in the lead. Especially for a reader from a non-Westminster-based democracy, this may be an unfamiliar concept.
  •  Done
• usually the Chief Secretary or Treasurer, for which they were paid a salary. Does this mean the Premier was not paid a salary? Clarify.
  •  Done I removed the entire paragraph and moved relevant info into the body.
• The first head of government to hold the title of Premier without holding another portfolio was William Shiels in 1892. Was he paid a salary?
  •  Done I removed the entire paragraph. This isn't really relevant as its not uncommon today for premiers to hold additional portfolios. (see Napthine ministry).
• This election was believed to be a world first, as it was the first time a secret ballot was used in an election. Awkward phrasing. The use of 'believed' gives ambiguity as to if a secret ballot had been used before, but the second part of the sentence has no ambiguity.
  •  Done - removed sentence (see Secret_ballot#Australia_and_New_Zealand).
• rather every member of parliament (MP) was essentially an independent Is 'was essentially' necessary? Is there any difference to a modern-day independent?
  •  Done - removed the word "essentially".
• Could be worth mentioning Daniel Andrews in the post-Federation section, considering his longevity as Premier.
  •  Done
• 6,288 consecutive days Convert to years.
  •  Done
• Mention when and how frequently elections are held.
  •  Done
• The whole 'Statue' section is very confusing. It states that five premiers have served for over 3,000 days, but then introduces a sixth premier who served for over 3,000 days but isn't mentioned in the above list. I would change it to mention all six premiers in the list, and then explain why Andrews and McCulloch don't have statues.
  •  Done I've done my best to fix that up, let me know you you think further copyediting is required.
• Make the list sortable.
  • Not possible due to vertically merged cells.

Overall, in a pretty good shape, and probably ready for WP:FL status. Thanks for your work! JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started applying your suggestions and have denoted what I have completed thus far with the ((done)) template above. I will continue to work on it throughout the day. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I brought a similar list to FL status, List of prime ministers of Australia. You might want to have a look at the nomination page, to see the feedback I got there. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a more thorough reading of the article, some nitpicks:

• The tradition was initiated by Legislative Council President Fred Grimwade. Expand upon this in the body, the source already linked can be used to do this.

• •  Done

• You don't need citations in the lede if it is already mentioned in the body of the article. Many of the citations in the lede can be removed.
  •  Done - I left a couple that aren't verified in the body or that could be effected when the split occurs.
• Everything in the lede should be mentioned in the body of the article, this doesn't seem to be the case.
  • Just the last paragraph of the lede isn't mentioned in the prose but is covered by the list. Let me know if I need to address this in the prose as well.
• marked the end of the instability isn't explicitly mentioned in the source, and feels like a type of WP:SYNTH.
  •  Done
• command the confidence of the majority of lower house members, meaning to have the support of a majority of lower house members is an unnecessarily long sentence which could just be written as "the support of a majority of lower house members".
  • I removed the meaning to have the support of a majority of lower house members part as "command confidence" is the proper meta language.
• In practice, this is usually is wordiness that could be cut out by picking one or the other.
  •  Done
• I would recommend taking it to WP:GOCE to smooth out the wording and ensure that it aligns with WP:MOS.
  •  Done

JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping, because I forgot: @GMH Melbourne: JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will work on these improvements in the coming days. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMH Melbourne: I second HoHo3143's comments below that the article should be split similar to Prime Minister of Australia and List of prime ministers of Australia. Anyway, I've gone ahead and changed the current article rating from list to B class, as it is clear that the article is now mostly prose. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HoHo3143

Thank you for the work you have been doing here... it's an important article and it's good to see its getting the attention it deserves. A few suggestions/discussion points:

• I strongly believe that the articles content assessment should be switched from list to C class. As you are expanding the article similar to Prime Minister of Australia or POTUS, its not a list anymore instead an actual article
• Further to this, as this article will be undergoing heavy expansion (similar to PM of Australia), I would split this article into Premier of Victoria (styled similarly to PM of Australia) and List of Premiers of Victoria (similar to List of prime ministers of Australia). In doing this, you would then delete the List of premiers of Victoria by time in office as the table on the list article would be sortable, making this article redundant
• In Amenities of office I would add a section talking about transport (private driver) and after office (pension, driver, airfares)
• I'd change history to history and development to dive deeper into how the office of premier of Victoria was created in the first place and how it developed (there's some interesting stuff in the Parliament of Victoria article)

I'll eventually think of some more points. Let me know what you think @GMH Melbourne:

@HoHo3143: Thank you for your feedback. I also agree with splitting the articles and have tried to do so in the past with the split being reverted. I will try to seek consensus again to do so on the article's talk page. I don't think it will be possible to make the listed sortable due to vertically merged cells in the table. Is there a way of doing so? ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMH Melbourne I don't think there is a way. Maybe on the new List of Premiers page, have a section for the main list and then a section for the by time in office (this could be collapsible). What do you think? HoHo3143 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: If the Monarch and Governor columns are removed than the list will be able to become sortable. Is it worth removing the columns? ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC) (I saw your comments on the talk page. I agree) ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: I have added a section on retirement (see here). I haven't found any sources that go into after office entitlements or perks for current premiers only news articles that basically speculate (see here). I will work on the history and development section in the coming days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMH Melbourne using those articles as a reference, you could ask the state library (here) about the history and what their entitlements are. Its worth a try as they may have some resources. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]