Talk:East Gippsland, Australia shire council passes motion against nuclear weapons

Reporter's notes

The source for most of the quotes here are from the livestream of the council meeting. The discussion of this treaty starts at about 1 hours and 5 minutes in, so just skip to there as this video is about 3 hours long to verify these quotes. --LivelyRatification (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4603932 [Passed]

Revision 4603932 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I needed, in verifying this, full names and pictures of the councillors. Didn't notice this in, or closely attached to, the cited sources (did I miss it somewhere?); it really should have been there. On this occasion, I used this page. This seems to me relevant in the instance. How this might change if we had lots of items about local votes on this, or lots of coverage of local council meetings (which is imaginable), I don't immediately know; likely we'd need to consider how to cope with the situation as it emerged. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4603932 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I needed, in verifying this, full names and pictures of the councillors. Didn't notice this in, or closely attached to, the cited sources (did I miss it somewhere?); it really should have been there. On this occasion, I used this page. This seems to me relevant in the instance. How this might change if we had lots of items about local votes on this, or lots of coverage of local council meetings (which is imaginable), I don't immediately know; likely we'd need to consider how to cope with the situation as it emerged. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Ah, my mistake there, should have added sources on the names and pictures of the councillors. I presumed this followed WN:CARCRASH re: relevancy, but I can see how this would be handled differently if we had a lot more articles like this. Thanks for your help! --LivelyRatification (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Why this particular region made such vote, and not someone else? Gryllida (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there have been other similar votes, just happened to be watching this meeting so I wrote something up on it. --LivelyRatification (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I feel we can work out how to do better with something of this type, going forward. I wasn't able to pinpoint it during the review (alas). Gryllida has asked the right question. The article would come across more clearly for an international audience if it were clearer that there really is no particular association between East Gippsland and nuclear weapons. (At least, I think there's no particular association there; not to forget, whatever we do say we have to verify.)

Note the difference between this tricky point of explaining significance here, and how it would play differently if the council meeting as a whole were the focus; I'm not advocating that approach, just noting the difference. Imagine reporting on the council meeting the way one might do for a local paper: the disarmament vote would then naturally tend to settle into the background, needing less effort to keep it from sounding overly important. --Pi zero (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there's basically no connection. Googling "East Gippsland nuclear", the closest thing I can find to a connection is a nuclear lobbying group saying East Gippsland could be a good site for nuclear power, and that was not discussed nor has it been any sort of issue since the publishing of that article. I'm not entirely sure how to emphasise that there's no connection. Perhaps we could have said "East Gippsland, Australia passes anti-nuclear motion after invitation from nuclear ban lobby group", or said in the lede "East Gippsland has no history with nuclear weapons"? I do agree that I think there is an issue that it could come off to the reader a certain way that would imply a connection. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)