Talk:Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars

Military history: South Pacific Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Suggestions[edit]

Section 2.3 reads as if paragraphs are missing. It may also be that paragraphs are out of sequence.180.149.192.144 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text has a major repetition of about half a dozen paragraphs, which differ slightly but cover the same material.

The text refers to a military party containing captains, subalterns, a walrus, and privates. I can't find any information on the web about British 18thC military use of the term walrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickanderson (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day I took a quick look at the article based on the request on my talk page. Good work so far. I have the following observations/suggestions:

for a B class rating, each paragraph should be covered by a citation at the end (at a minimum). Additionally all quoted material should have an inline citation directly after the close brackets;
in the infobox, as a matter of style, generally it is not necessary to include ranks;
where possible wikilinks/internal links should be added for notable terms/people;
currently there is inconsistent spelling for McEntire (you also use McIntire and McIntyre);
when people are introduced, some context should be added so that the reader knows who they are. For instance, in the Background section currently the way it is worded the article just assumes that the readers know who McEntire is (same with Colebee and Tench, and others). An example of how this might be rectified is as follows: "On 10 December 1790, McEntire, a British settler...";
the article should use past tense as it is dealing with events in the past. Currently there are examples of future tense. For instance, "Governor Macquarie is forced to find a solution..." This should be "Governor Macquarie was forced to find a solution...";
in the Resistance crushed section, it mentions the 76th Regiment. Is this correct? Based on the research I did for the List of British Army regiments that served in Australia between 1810 and 1870, I don't believe that the 76th Regiment ever served in Australia. I think it is actually more likely to have been the 46th Regiment. Can you please check your sources and adjust if necessary?
the infobox lists casualties, these should probably be worked into the prose in the body of the article too. They could be put in the final section and will also need to be cited to a reliable source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit Soon[edit]

I have been away for awhile but I have recently finished the article "Bathurst War" and am going to come back and redo this entire article. From what I can tell majority if not all of the "facts" in here are wrong. I have extensive sources which are very reliable and all of which have come from the Australian National Museum and other historical organisations. How can I properly reference these when they cannot be viewedonline etc?--101.165.121.13 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start revamping this article--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any future edits, please be sure you do not claim English victory. The English stopped fighting. The First Nation peoples who live in the area have never surrendered sovereignty to English rule and have continued fighting until eventually they were recognized as the rightful land owners. The remaining 'English' parliament ended and they no longer exist, there is now an Australian Parliament who are currently forming a treaty with the First Nation people to bring them in line with the Barunga Statement and return First Nation rulership to First Nation land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.24.15 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]