Talk:1995 Quebec referendum/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have intermittent internet access over the next few days. I apologize for the delay, but I will get to this next week. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. I'll get started today, sorry for the delay. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• There are no errors that I can see, but the lede is a little thin for an article this long. Maybe a sentence or two more on background, and a bit about the course of the campaign?

Background

• Do you think a link to French Canadian would make sense in here somewhere?
  • I've always been a bit loath to use the term, as I believe the preference here would be Quebecois. Am willing to be corrected, though.
    • That's fine.
• "...new Prime Minister Brian Mulroney..." maybe "newly elected Prime Minster..." might sound better.
  • Prime Ministers technically aren't elected, they're appointed.
• A brief description of the Meech Lake Accords would add some context. Not a whole paragraph, just a sentence or two.
  • done
• Same for the Charlottetown Accord. To a non-Canadian, it's not clear what's being talked about.
  • done
• "...their popular vote total (44.75%) was considered disappointing." By whom? This needs a citation.
  • in progress

Prelude

• Did all the other parties boycott the Commission? If so, it might just be better to say "The other major parties all boycotted the Commission.", which also resolves the passive voice problem.
  • I don't think "all" other parties did, Federal and provincial NDP may not have. Knoper (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, Brest left as is, then. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• You write about a "Yes" vote without saying which side was "Yes" and which was "No".
  • in progress

Referendum question

• You could probably combine notes 1 and 4, couldn't you?
  • done
• "...who had no input with regard to the drafting." could probably just be "...who had no input in the drafting."
  • will do
• More later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Participants

• "Both committees had an authorized budget of $5 million each." Maybe "Each committee had an authorized budget of $5 million."?

Unity Rally

• "Bouchard strongly attacked the rally..." is rather purple prose. Maybe "Bouchard criticized the rally..."?

Result

• A link or brief description for "allophones" would be helpful to non-Canadians.

Negotiations

• This part has some problems: "Reform leader Preston Manning intended to immediately call for Chrétien's resignation and for a general election if the referendum was successful.[114] This was despite the fact that the Liberals, even disregarding Quebec seats, had a sizable majority in the House of Commons." For one, you already mention Manning above, so his last name alone should suffice. The "the fact that" construction is also kind of awkward. I'd recommend something like "Manning intended to immediately call for Chrétien's resignation and for a general election if the referendum was successful, even though the Liberals, independent of their Quebec seats, had a sizable majority in the House of Commons." The second, third, fourth paragraphs could probably be combined, too.

Spending limits and Option Canada

*Where you have "pursuant to" you can nearly always just write "under". It's a style thing, not a rule, so if you disagree, it's fine. I just think it reads better that way.

Remaining issues

• I think the only thing left is the lede, right? --Coemgenus (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so. I'll get on it. Really appreciate all your help. Knoper (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see things are moving along. Anything I can do to help?--Dekk01 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing left is to expand the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede??? Sorry but english is my 2nd language. My comment was mostly directed to Knopper. Sorry :( --Dekk01 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede means the lead section, the first few paragraphs. Any progress, Knoper? --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was on vacation. I'll try and do something tonight. Tough to fit the whole thing in and keep it snappy. Knoper (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks great. I'm happy to promote this to Good Article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)