# Talk:Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey

I think the public opinion section should include the Guardian Essential poll result on whether the process was a good one and should be used again. Diff showing my wording and source  Because the survey was a novel process, it is part of the public opinion to know whether the process was liked or disliked by the public.  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Exclude - I don't think the public's opinion on whether the same process should be used for other issues is relevant here. (It is reasonable to include the opinion / approval rate of the process for this issue, but the use of the process for other issues is out of scope.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Could it be rephrased as the converse?  (ie. the majority disapproved of the process)  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Either way, the opinion about whether the same process should be used for other issues is not relevant here. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made some edits to improve this section, but am considering removing it outright. My concern is that it misrepresents the nature of how the parliament works: as Australia has a representative democracy it's entirely normal for how MPs vote on individual issues to differ from the majority view on that issue in their electorate, especially as MPs belonging to a party almost always vote on the party line (ALP MPs are actually required to do so). In particular, this is a perennial issue with conscience votes such as that granted to MPs by the major parties on this issue given that MPs are explicitly freed from following any party line and vote in line with their personal views. The section lacks this context, and is entirely wrong-headed. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the text that is there is reasonable to have somewhere, insofar as many MPs sought to respect the views of their electorate and it was the subject of much discussion. However, I think "Democratic representation" is a stupid title for that content for the reasons you note. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Only a couple of minor changes required
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Some issue; see comments below
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Comments
One unsourced sentence. I've marked it with a "citation required" tag. And a {{who}} tag
fn 19 is dead
fn 35, 36, 37 do not work
I've corrected some typos
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jono52795: --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed these issues.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For the two maps near the top, "Results by state and territory" & "Results by electorate", there are different intensities of colour, presumably representing vote percentages, but no key to interpret them beyond yes/no. Chriswaterguy talk 06:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There’s not much on here about the controversy regarding mail fraud, this article from crikey covers it well https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/09/18/i-couldve-committed-voter-fraud-in-the-gay-marriage-postal-vote/ in a way it really puts to shame the American 2020 election voter fraud issue when you consider what occurred in Australia 120.29.62.84 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So one person received multiple survey forms in the mail because a couple didn't update their address on the electoral roll, and could have filled them in, but didn't, and then wrote an article about it? Wow!!! How is that a big deal, or even a controversy? It's not—get real! --Canley (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)