Wikipedia:Peer review/1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to add this to my queue of future FACs. I think it's not far from there now, and would appreciate whatever thoughts people are willing to provide about improving it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Thorough account of a now rather distant political cause celebre which makes entertaining reading. No dablinks, no broken external links, all alt text in place. For obvious reasons I have largely confined my comments to the prose, and many are no more than suggestions that you might consider.
- Steve Smith response: Outstanding work as, always; I'll implement most of these suggestions in the next few days. In the meantime, I've responded to a few points/requested some clarification below (my comments in bold). Steve Smith (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Lead
- I have resized the lead image - no reason for it to be so small. Is it possible to identify the cabinet members, at least those who appear in the story?
- They're all identified on the image description page. I could add them to the caption, but you say below that my captions tend to be too long already. Thoughts?
- It's not a major issue. If it was me I'd put the names in and make an exception of the caption length, but it's your decision. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- They're all identified on the image description page. I could add them to the caption, but you say below that my captions tend to be too long already. Thoughts?
- First sentence - confusion towards the end. And MLA should have an appropriate link. I suggest, for clarity, "...by a backbench group of legislative assembly members (MLAs) from his Social Credit party."
- "...before being elected in 1935." suggest "...before his election victory in 1935."
- Perhaps "insurgents" is too strong a term for parliamentary rebels? Could they not be termed just "rebels"?
- (amused aside) A political party that calls itself "Social Credit" wins an election, then has to call in experts from Britain to show it how to implement Social Credit! You would have thought they mght have found this out a bit earlier.
- You'd think. Aberhart was a bit of a catastrophe.
- Overall, the lead could do with a bit of expansion if it is reflect the whole content of the article.
- I have resized the lead image - no reason for it to be so small. Is it possible to identify the cabinet members, at least those who appear in the story?
- Background:
- Suggested rephrase: "he repeated them so often that..."
- Link caucus - it's not much of an article but better than nothing
- Genesis of a revolt
- "...Aberhart would not or could not implement that system on which they had been elected." Suggest rephrase: "...Aberhart would not or could not implement the policies on which the party had been elected."
- I'm concerned that "policies" might imply too much specificity; they really weren't elected so much on policies, per se, as on a vague promise of ending the Depression through the magic of "social credit". Mind you, "system" might be too strong too. Maybe "promises"?
- Yes, promises looks right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that "policies" might imply too much specificity; they really weren't elected so much on policies, per se, as on a vague promise of ending the Depression through the magic of "social credit". Mind you, "system" might be too strong too. Maybe "promises"?
- Awkward prose: "...began to meet in Edmonton's Corona hotel to, as Ernest Manning biographer Brian Brennan puts it, "plot Aberhart's downfall". First, did they "begin to meet" or did they "meet"? Secondly, we haven't been told who Manning is. Thirdly, I'd place the comma after "hotel", and thus run the sentence as "met in Edmonton's Corona hotel, to "plot Aberhart's downfall" according to Canadian author Brian Brennan, biographer of future premier Ernest Manning."
- Repetitive phrasing: "Ross resigned over ... Cockroft resigned over" I'd make the second "left", and I'd say "a combination" rather than "some combination".
- Full ministerial titles are considerable mouthfuls, and make reading arduous work. Do we really need to know the full portfolios of Chant, Cross and Fallow? Maybe they could ne just "ministers"? There is also one and too many in the sentence dealing with Manning's illness.
- "It limited its commitment...": both these "its" need specifying. ("The speech limited the government's commitment...")
- "...Aberhart would not or could not implement that system on which they had been elected." Suggest rephrase: "...Aberhart would not or could not implement the policies on which the party had been elected."
- The dissent becomes overt
- Not really a Wikipedia section title - these don't normally begin with "The..." and are usually telegraphic, e.g. "Open dissent"
- "...this call was endorsed by Social Credit backbencher Blue." Reads oddly, suggest call him Albert Blue. I'd also give Ansley his first name when reintroducing him to the story.
- "...they began a filibuster" Specify who.
- We need a reminder of who "Brown" is.
- Sideshows: coronations and recall petitions
- Not an encyclopedic heading, I'm afraid. There was one coronation and one recall petition The main subject of the section is the recall petition, and I'd title it just that.
- Pronoun confusion: "Douglas, challenged by Hargrave for the leadership of the social credit movement and under attack by some of his followers for a lack of cooperation with the world's first social credit government, offered to host him..." It is not clear who is meant by "his" and "him".
- More repetitive phrasing: the words "the petition" at the end of the section are not necessary.
- Manoeuvring and negotiation
- Isn't "maneuvering" the US spelling (which I believe this article uses)?
- I aimed for Canadian spelling, rather than US (hence "rumour", "favour", "labour", "travelled", "channelling") or British (hence "emphasized", "authorized") - we're a bit of a schizophrenic lot. I'm actually not positive about the Canadian spelling of that one, though - I'll check it out.
- For clarity I suggest "...and the motion itself was defeated."
- Social Credit Measures Act in italics?
- Why the confusion over dates? Here, April 8 or 12, earlier March 11 or 12
- My best explanation is that scholars of Alberta political history are sloppy. I don't know - I'm just repeating what the sources say, and the sources can't seem to get their shit together. I might resort to some primary sources to settle the discrepancy, if I can find them.
- Final sentence lacks clarity on Brown's warning. A slight tweak would give "The bill was passed, and the insurgents were placated, though Brown made it clear during a cross-province speaking tour that they were determined to see social credit implemented, and warned that 'if anyone gets in our way, he's going to get into trouble...we must choose between principles and party, between Social Credit and Premier Aberhart'."
- Isn't "maneuvering" the US spelling (which I believe this article uses)?
- Social Credit Board and commission
- "was composed of" → "comprised"
- What is the "Executive council"? Is this another term for "cabinet"?
- "MacLachlan ... arrived in London May 9, where he met with Douglas at his fishing lodge." A fishing lodge in London?
- "Douglas refused to come himself..." Say where he refused to come to.
- Aftermath
- Who is Joe Unwin?
- Images
- In each case we are told "author unknown" and in the licenses that the author died more than 50 years ago. How do we know?
- I think you misread the license - they're in the public domain because they're of Canadian origin and were taken before January 1, 1949. Life of the author has nothing to do with it (Canadian copyright law as it pertained to photos used to be kind of odd that way).
- Do we know that the images are PD in the US? Only the last of the images has a license which indicates that this is the case.
- All are in the PD in the US by virtue of being in the PD in the country of origin as at the date of restoration. I'll tag that to make it clear.
- In most cases the captions are rather too long, and should be shortened.
- Trivial point: if the depicted archdeacon is an Anglican, his title is "The Venerable" not "The Reverend".
- I know less than nothing about this sort of thing, and am just copying the sources. Is there any denomination that has Archdeacons that would be called "The Reverend"? Would it be correct if I just left it as "Archdeacon S. H. Middleton", or is the honorific mandatory?
- I don't know of any other denomination that has archdeacons. It would be fine to omit the honorific. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know less than nothing about this sort of thing, and am just copying the sources. Is there any denomination that has Archdeacons that would be called "The Reverend"? Would it be correct if I just left it as "Archdeacon S. H. Middleton", or is the honorific mandatory?
- In each case we are told "author unknown" and in the licenses that the author died more than 50 years ago. How do we know?
I hope these points help. As I am not able to watch individual PRs, please use my talkpage for any queries, complaints etc. Thanks anyway for an interesting read on a subject entirely new to me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)