Talk:Warren Allmand/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. I am currently completing my initial reading/minor copyediting, and will present my initial impressions below. Stedil (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put general thoughts in the table organized by criteria, then get into specifics below, which, when addressed, will qualify the article for GA status. Stedil (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Some minor spelling/grammar mistakes that I corrected as I reviewed. Some awkward phrases, see below. Update: issues fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	one or two minor words to watch, see below. update: issues have been addressed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	references formatted correctly.
	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).	one or two sections which could be better referenced, see below. update: issues have been addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is properly sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Wording in a few places is a little too similar to the sources, see below. update: issues have been addressed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is very thorough in its coverage. Nice work!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Text is concise where needed, and expands to cover the topic as appropriate.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	related to "Words to watch" above, just a few phrases that appear a little promotional. See below. update: issues have been addressed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit wars present.
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.	Only one image. Contains fair use rationale, which appears valid as far as I am aware.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only photo is a studio portrait.
	7. Overall assessment.	Just a few minor tweaks, as noted below, and I'll pass it. Nice work! update: There are still a few small things (see final updates below) that I think will improve the article, but I realize the impetus to fix these issues isn't there. After tidying up, I've decided to go ahead and pass the article.

Clear language

Under "Federal Politics," the paragraph about gun control has long, awkwardly phrased sentence structure, Especially the sentence beginning, "In 1971, he proposed a bill..."

Update: "The bill also proposed an application process which included a waiting period during which the gun purchase was publicly listed to allow people to object." Still a little awkward. What is meant by "people?" Which people can object - anybody?

final update: fixed.

"the bill that would abolish the death penalty in Canada. The bill proposed complete removal of the death penalty from the Criminal Code." Are both of these sentences needed? Seems a bit redundant. Perhaps only the second sentence is needed, since it is more specific.

Update: looks good now.

"A visitation for Allmand will be held on December 17 and 18 at Collins Clarke MacGillivray White, and the funeral is planned to be held at St. Patrick's Basilica on December 19" Obviously, now these events are past-tense, but they also seem quite trivial in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps just a straight removal of this information would be best.

Update: looks good now.

"Allmand preferred not signing the treaty than passing a flawed version that with a loophole that other countries could also adopt to circumvent its terms." Awkward phrasing, minor grammar issues: "that with a loophole that."

Update: Still awkward, so I rewrote it.

Words/phrases to watch/Neutrality

"In December 1976, Allmand was Solicitor General when Leonard Peltier was extradited to the United States after the Federal Bureau of Investigation submitted false information to the Canadian government, including an affidavit from a woman with mental disorders who claimed to be Peltier's girlfriend." The source doesn't exactly say this. The source says that according to Allmand, the FBI claim is false. There will need to be more definitive evidence to prove that the FBI statement was false before that information can be included in the article. This could be changed to, "Allmand claims that..." or, the paragraph could be rephrased to mention that Allmand is an advocate for Leonard Peltier's clemency, which is supported by reliable sources. I mention this because Leonard Peltier is a controversial figure, so it is important that any information about him is neutral and verifiable.

Update - still needs fixing.

final update - I added "According to Allmand" to show the source of the claim.

In Indian Affairs section, "Allmand was seen as particularly sensitive..." by who? In this paragraph, Allmand's policies should be stated outright, instead of what people thought about his policies. "seemingly about to reach..." I know that is stated in the source, but there isn't any evidence provided for that. Seems like speculation unless more information can be provided.

Update - still needs fixing.

final update - I still think this section could be better supported, but I won't hold it against passing the entire article.

In Montreal municipal politics, "Allmand once again showed an independent streak..." is this phrase necessary? "took on some of the least glamorous jobs on the council..." opinion that's nearly copied from the source.

Update - still needs fixing.

final update - fixed.

Source fixes

the first source (ref name=":1") is a dead link. Can this source be web archived, or was it moved to a different location on their website? I know government websites sometimes shift around the location of their online databases.

Update - fixed.

Under Abolishing the Death Penalty, "Almost all opponents thought that the death penalty was a useful tool to deter crime and terrorism" - citation needed. The first half of this rather lengthy paragraph appears to be only attributed to one source. I couldn't find support for the above statement in the source. The entire death penalty section appears to rely on this one source fairly heavily. Could this paragraph be supported by other sources?

Update - still needs fixing.

final update - I reworded to more closely match what is expressed in the source. I still think this section could use some source diversification, but I won't hold it against passing the review.

"During Brian Mulroney's tenure as prime minister, Allmand held numerous Official Opposition critic portfolios. He was critic for Employment from 1984 to 1990." This information is not in the cited source.

Update - fixed.

"the World Federalist Movement–Canada honoured Allmand with its World Peace Award." the reference for this section brought up a privacy warning on my browser (Chrome). Has their website moved? This information might be available on their new website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedil (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - fixed.

Additional Comments

That concludes my first round of reviewing. Once you address each of the concerns above, I'll double check to make sure everything is in order, then pass the article. Stedil (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to work these changes in when I have time this upcoming week. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes, but have had a busy week. Will try to finish these this week. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Let me know when you are finished. Stedil (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: Still working? Stedil (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: Yeah, sorry, not free enough to access a library source that details more of Mr. Allmand's work in Indigenous affairs as an MP and minister. Hopefully soon (I'll definitely ping you when that happens).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: In the interest of moving the review along, I've posted the current status of specific items in the review with the tag "update." Stedil (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to get to these ASAP when I have more access to the more in-depth sources. Been pretty busy lately. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: I decided it was time to bring this review to a close. After examining the article as it currently stands, I think the changes made are sufficient to bring the article to GA status. There are still two aspects (see "final updates") that I think will improve the article, if you can find the time to access more sources. Stedil (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: Belated thanks for passing this. I've been quite busy in real life recently and my on-wiki activity has gone down as a result. I'll try to address the remaining issues in a push for Featured Article status sometime in the future. Thanks again, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]