Talk:Bush carpentry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hephaestus Has Struck![edit]

Well now, here's a most ingenious paradox. Hephaestus Books has scraped my articles Slab hut and Bush carpentry off Wikipedia and published them as Wooden Buildings and Structures, Including: Slab Hut, Bush Carpentry, Buswartehobel as a Print on demand title, ISBN 9781242493300. Hephaestus are technically entitled to do this under a Creative Commons Licence, but what I want to know is, since my articles are now between (soft) covers and are dignified with a publisher's imprint, can I cite this book as an authority for the content of the articles they hijacked? Incidentally, Hephaestus Books don't call this 'publishing' they call it 'curating'.

I am reminded of an apposite quote from Chapter 12 of Huckleberry Finn:

Mornings before daylight I slipped into cornfields and borrowed a watermelon, or a mushmelon, or a punkin, or some new corn, or things of that kind. Pap always said it warn't no harm to borrow things if you was meaning to pay them back some time; but the widow said it warn't anything but a soft name for stealing, and no decent body would do it. Jim said he reckoned the widow was partly right and pap was partly right; so the best way would be for us to pick out two or three things from the list and say we wouldn't borrow them any more -- then he reckoned it wouldn't be no harm to borrow the others. So we talked it over all one night, drifting along down the river, trying to make up our minds whether to drop the watermelons, or the cantelopes, or the mushmelons, or what. But towards daylight we got it all settled satisfactory, and concluded to drop crabapples and p'simmons. We warn't feeling just right before that, but it was all comfortable now. I was glad the way it come out, too, because crabapples ain't ever good, and the p'simmons wouldn't be ripe for two or three months yet.

Bluedawe 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Poor Rating For This Article![edit]

I note the rating (there has been only one) for this article is a series of rather grumpy 1/5s. I invite the 1/5er to contribute the missing material, identify and repair what is unreliable, remedy the subjectivity, and do all of the former in exemplary prose from which I shall be able to learn. I am merely the humble creator of the article, and crave instruction from a superior author and authority. Bluedawe 06:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still waiting for instruction.Bluedawe 02:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bush carpentry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Bluedawe

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Although this article has several strengths, it does not currently fulfill the "Good Article" criteria. The places where it falls short are significant enough that I am quick-failing the nomination.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Though there are a few places where the grammar could be improved, on the whole the prose in this article is very good. I did not detect any plagiarism.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Most of the problems in this article are due to MoS problems.
    • Lead: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section tells us "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". This one-sentence lead does none of that.
    • Quotes: This article has 11 long quotes, wherein a source is quoted at length. These quotes make up a significant percentage of the total article. Some quotes are valuable, but most of these quotes can be rewritten in prose make the same point in your own words. Including so many quotes can cause copyright concerns.
    • Paragraphs: There are too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs.
    • Notes: Information in notes should be referenced. Some notes (particularly #5) should be incorporated into the prose.
    • Galleries: Use of galleries is not appropriate. (I'll give more detail in 6B, below.)
    • External links: This section is not formatted according to the MoS. Inappropriate features include lists of non-free image links, long quotes from a newspaper article, and horizontal rules.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Many of the references are dead links. Others are formatted incorrectly. Many sources in the bibliography are missing ISBNs, and others have incorrect ISBNs. Frequently the bibliography entries are formatted incorrectly in various ways.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Many statements are unsourced. This includes all of the notes, all of the "The bush" section after the first paragraph, etc.
    C. No original research:
    I don't think there is original research. But due to the lack of sourcing for some parts, I can't really tell.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    It seems to cover all major aspects of the topic.
    B. Focused:
    It does not go off on unrelated tangents, excluding the galleries.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The images are all legitimately free, and many of the best images were created by the nominator, I note.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The use of galleries, in both the "Some tools..." section and "Examples of..." section, are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The "Some tools..." section should simply be removed, as the commonly-used tools have already been mentioned in the prose. The "Examples of..." section would be more appropriate as a How-to Wikibook rather than an encyclopedia article. (The images in other sections are fine.)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The lead needs to be rewritten, references added, image galleries removed, quotes reduced, and sources cleaned up. Then it could be renominated, if you wish. – Quadell (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aborigines and Dwellings[edit]

Australian Aborigines did not build dwellings. They contrived shelters. 'Dwelling' implies permanence, continual occupation. Traditional Aboriginal society was semi-nomadic, the antithesis of residency. Constructions for long-term use would have been a waste of energy; upon the arrival at any locale during their cyclic migrations as food sources became available, any 'permanent' structure previously erected would have deteriorated and thus require additional work to make habitable. Consider the depredations of termites and bushfire alone. New shelters were therefore improvised each time, and building techniques were unknown because unnecessary. The practice of making new shelters was also healthier than inhabiting old ones.

It is a severe twisting of the facts to describe large camps of Aborigines as 'villages'; the word 'ville' implies settlement, organisation, nomenclature, structure, all alien concepts.

Let's not be tempted to re-write history to make it agree with current prejudices. Our universities today are rife with biassed persons who are doing just that, and by doing so, are destroying the very nature of universities as citadels of scholarship, critical reasoning, open debate, and rationality. 121.44.216.120 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bush carpentry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bush carpentry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bush_carpentry&oldid=1200474163"