Talk:Don Dunstan

message: It says, "but no national parks, gardens, buildings or performance venues were named after him" and has a photo of the Dunstan Playhouse which is named after him on the page.  The two cannot stand.  There is also the Electoral district of Dunstan.  Is the first statement meant to be limited in time?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.130.100 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours 

message: I've added this as one of the reasons Corcoran lost. As well as here, i've seen it stated in one or two other places as well as from Antony Green, but I struggle to find it. Can anyone help? Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Timeshift (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1979 election - Advertiser bias to Liberals 

message: Article here. I notice it's not mentioned in this article. Would someone care to weave it in? Timeshift (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Added but with different ref. JennyOz (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunstan govt established nudist Maslins beach 

message: There is an extensive article about the Dunstan Government, recently in inDaily written by Peter Duncan https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2019/02/13/remembering-don-dunstan-necessary-nuance-and-correcting-the-record/ Alex Sims (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indaily Article 

message: This Featured article is a 2006 promotion whose main writer retired ten years ago.  The lead is out of compliance with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA.  A reviewer (unsigned) at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page wrote:   Unless someone can engage to bring this article back to FA standards, it should be submitted to Featured article review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues seem a bit trivial: I'm open to doing a bit of work if someone wants to illustrate in more depth what they see as the problem. I do note though that there have been two biographies of Dunstan since this was written, the 2019 Woollacott one in particular being far more in-depth than other past treatments and probably containing quite a bit of relevant missing info. (I have Dunstan's autobiography and the Hodge book and an ebook copy of the Woollacott one.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have offline sources, so might be of only limited help. The "minor niggle" of MATS plan or MATS plans - "plans" is footnoted to a book. The fact that we now know of the "MATS plan" doesn't mean the entire sentence with "plans" is not what the Transport Minister had to consider at the time. --Scott Davis Talk 11:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't like the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Too much detail which is about Playford, Walsh and Hall instead of Dunstan. All it really needs to say is that Dunstan gained prominence over the Max Stuart case, became attorney-general under Walsh, became premier in 1967, lost it in 1968 due to the Playmander, and got back into office in 1970 after electoral reforms. In the 3rd lead paragraph, I would shorten the latter part about the problems in his administration, probably by deleting the first 2 sentences about his problems, as well as the comment about him getting short tempered. Adpete (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It could probably be articulated better, but it's fairly critical to the story in any source you'll read. Playford was an incredibly long-serving and influential Premier, Walsh sort of fell in when the Playford government collapsed, Dunstan came in as a more long-term replacement, and much of Dunstan's career was very much linked to unravelling parts of the legacy of Playford's decades of leadership. Any of Dunstan's biographers would be able to explain that (and they all do) in a much more articulate way that my very-tired-right-now self but not talking about that would suggest that the author of the article just hadn't read the sources in any depth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I think it's OK. The prose is fine and I've tidied up the excessive ELs. I think it's in good nick for Main page and I think FAR would be inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Dweller ... I will enter a "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020 (but we need two more sigs on that to move it off the list, if you don't mind following my sig there once I do it.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review needed