Talk:Social Credit Board/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reveiwing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Need citations on a few quotations
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
One paragraph lacks citations at all and needs them.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I expect that they had some sort of effect on the province, right? Should have some sort of legacy/effects summing up at the end of the article
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Okay, a short explanation of Social Credit would be really helpful here. I am not expecting a long explanation, but something so I don't have to leave the article to figure out WHY this was so important...

How's this? Steve Smith (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest "legislative committee" rather than committee. Maybe Parliamentary?

Do you mean in the first sentence? I don't think either word is actually accurate, as they would imply that it was a committee of the Legislative Assembly.

What the heck does "... or ruled ultra vires the province by the Supreme Court of Canada;..." mean? Strongly suggest you NOT use the technical legal term here and just name what was wrong.

I've changed it to take the same approach as I took in another article (though I can't offhand remember which one). See what you think.

No articles on L. Dennis Byrne and George Powell?

There's not a great deal to report besides what's in this article; I've never encountered any basic biographical details in secondary sources.

"Hugill responded in the negative and Aberhart requested and received his resignation." I assume the "his" refers to Hugill? It's a bit unclear.

I've changed the sentence around a bit; see what you think.

Okay, first paragrah of Decline is totally unsourced, and it really needs something. At the least "When Aberhart died in 1943, he was replaced by Ernest Manning, who was by this time considerably less open to radical social credit proposals than Aberhart had been." needs citing as opinion.

I'm mystified as to how that happened. I've rectified it. As for the opinion, it is very much the consensus opinion of historians (to the point of there being literally no dissenters, as far as I'm aware), and I've cited a number of sources to that effect. Steve Smith (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a cite right on "a plot, world-wide in scope, deliberately engineered by a small number of ruthless international financiers" as it's a longish quote.

It's from Barr 128, which is currently at the end of the sentence as footnote 13. I'm happy to adjust the footnoting however you think is best - should I move the footnote from the end of the sentence to the end of the quote? Repeat it in both locations?

Theoretically all quotations need a cite directly on them, but usually a "short" quotation (two three words) can escape. Longer ones though should have cites at both the quotation AND the end, if needed. Yes, it's incredibly annoying, but needs done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so here and with the one below. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a cite on the long quotes starting "condemn..." and "any statements.." in that same paragraph.

That's from Brennan 95 (footnote 15). As for the solution, as per the previous issue.

Did they manage to pass ANY legislation that stuck? Did they do anything? I would expect a section on "effects" and/or legacy at the very least. This is probably the biggest concern in the entire article, it just leaves the subject hanging.

After 1939-ish, the board stopped proposing specific legislation and confined itself to broad recommendations, which were invariably ignored. Short of the effects of Reference re Alberta Statutes (which have themselves been made moot by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I'd be hard-pressed to identify any lasting importance. Steve Smith (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect some sort of "summary" at the end which mentions this sort of stuff.

I've tacked a paragraph on to the last section, and I'd appreciate your thoughts. Steve Smith (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, passing it now! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It's always a pleasure to get one from such a meticulous reviewer. Steve Smith (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]