Talk:Teresa van Lieshout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teresa van Lieshout article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (centre, colour, realise, program, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Teresa van Lieshout has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Defamation
There is alot of defamation on your Teresa van Lieshout page. She did not threaten violence against political leaders in any zoom meeting. Journalists, police, and psychiatrists have assaulted and defamed her badly. The government workers involved are guilty of assault, torture, and attempted murder. Furthermore, her political website voterightsparty.com states what she publically campaigns on (views). 49.185.143.23 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @49.185.143.23, the WP:RS say that she did. Voterightsparty.com is not a reliable source. TarnishedPathtalk 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Teresa van Lieshout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) 13:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pangalau (talk · contribs) 09:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello again! Since I'm on a roll, I'll be reviewing this article next. Pangalau (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Pangalau, once again thankyou for your time. TarnishedPathtalk 09:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Here is my initial assessment, see my comments below.
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
 |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Good. The writing is concise, clear, grammatical, and comprehensible to any reader. The problems pointed out above are purely stylistic and do not have any negative impact on the fulfilment of this requirement by the article. |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good. I did not notice any major MOS problem. The structure is normal for a biography article, the lead provides enough summary of the article, there are no problems concerning fiction, list inclusion and promotion. There were just a few minor MOS problems. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Good. It is worth mentioning that the article shows the proper citation approach since there are inline citations for every factual statement, as well as a separate section of references at its proper section which uses only reliable publications in a consistent format. |
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Good |
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Good |
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Good |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good |
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good |
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Good |
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Good |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Good |
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
- Comments:
- @TarnishedPath: Nicely written article. As you might already know, the archived URLs are a big plus. However, I have to point out that many references are cited from: Adelaide Now, News.com.au, Yahoo News, and BuzzFeed News. Such references are valid for reporting purposes especially when verified through other sources, but if there is similar reporting from better sources (for instance ABC News or the leading national newspapers), then that would be more appropriate.
- Ref 2 comes from van Lieshout's personal website. This would seem to be used solely for uncontroversial biographical details (such as her childhood or establishment of a political party). However, this is usually not allowed according to the self-published source guideline.
- Other than ref 2, these are merely suggestions and not concerns which will stop the article from meeting the GA criterion. In general, I think the article meets this criterion. What do you think? Good job! Pangalau (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Pangalau, thankyou for your review. I'm confortable with the usage of ref 2, as you say it's used for statements covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Yahoo is used for stating her position on an issue. I see no issue there. Adelaide Now is The Advertiser, which I've always understood to be one of Murdoch's better papers in Australia. I've replaced News.com.au with an article from The Advertiser (accessible through ProQuest). I've removed the material supported by Buzzfeed as I couldn't find any other sources supporting it and it wasn't primarily about our subject in any case. Let me know if you think anything else should be done. TarnishedPathtalk 00:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: I have checked out your recent edits and I must say that I'm really pleased with the results! These revisions have made your article even better! Thank you again and I will pass this GA nomination. Keep up the good work! Pangalau (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Pangalau, thankyou for your review. I'm confortable with the usage of ref 2, as you say it's used for statements covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Yahoo is used for stating her position on an issue. I see no issue there. Adelaide Now is The Advertiser, which I've always understood to be one of Murdoch's better papers in Australia. I've replaced News.com.au with an article from The Advertiser (accessible through ProQuest). I've removed the material supported by Buzzfeed as I couldn't find any other sources supporting it and it wasn't primarily about our subject in any case. Let me know if you think anything else should be done. TarnishedPathtalk 00:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know nomination
( )
Van Lieshout on a podcast in 2023
- ... that Teresa van Lieshout (pictured) impersonated the governor-general of Australia and attempted to form an alternative police force to arrest politicians? Source: ProQuest 2864679197
- ALT1: ... that during an election campaign, Teresa van Lieshout (pictured) taped her mouth shut and picketed a candidates' forum when she wasn't invited? Source: https://www.northweststar.com.au/story/5269156/batman-by-election-candidates-speak-out/
- ALT2: ... that Teresa van Lieshout (pictured) fought in the Batman by-election? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/batman-by-election-2018
- ALT3: ... that Teresa van Lieshout (pictured) fought to represent Batman? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/batman-by-election-2018
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Carlos Quaremba Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Antarctic Territory
- Comment: Suggestions for alternative hooks are always welcome.
Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk) and Pangalau (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 30 past nominations.
TarnishedPathtalk 07:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- I'm a bit concerned that ALT0 may fall on the wrong side of WP:DYKBLP, but ALT1/2/3 are fine.
Image eligibility:
- Freely licensed:
- Used in article:
- Clear at 100px: - The image is kind of blurry. I would only run this as an image hook if there were no other suitable image hooks.
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Nice work. If ALT2/3 is used, it may make a good April Fool's hook. Epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: WP:DYKBLP states that
Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided
(my emphasis on the word "unduly"). Given the nature of Van Lieshout's activities and how much of the article is taken up by the facts around the ALT0 hook I don't see a DYKBLP issue. That said, there's 4 possible hooks to choose from. TarnishedPathtalk 01:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)- I agree there are several good hooks, which was why I said that we can avoid ALT0 if necessary. I've approved ALT0 anyway, but I think "the subject impersonated and broke laws" can be considered unduly in some cases. Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)