Wikipedia:Peer review/Premiership of John Brownlee/archive1

Premiership of John Brownlee

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article's making its meandering way to WP:FAC, and I'd appreciate some help along the way. I know the prose isn't there yet, and I think I can fix that on my own given time, but I'd certainly appreciate comments from outside eyes on that front. Besides that, I'm especially interested in comments about how well context is established (i.e. is the article understandable to somebody with no knowledge of Alberta and maybe a passing acquaintance with Canadian government?), whether I keep an appropriate tone throughout (I probably don't), and whether the organization is intuitive. But really, all suggestions for improvement are welcome.

(A note on sourcing: I plan on diversifying the sourcing somewhat before FAC, but the Foster book is so indisputably the authoritative source on this subject that it's inevitably going to be leaned on heavily; most other "secondary" sources on the subject reference Foster's book extensively, so citing more from those would really only give the illusion of source diversity.) Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall

Remarks on first reading follow.
I've made a few minor tweaks, Steve, mainly around establishing a little more context.
I've never been to Alberta, I know nothing about it, and I know nothing about Canadian government. (My only visit to the American continent was a brief trip to Ontario to attend my brother's wedding.) If I were researching Brownlee, I would frown a little about the lede; it seems to present information chronologically, rather than in order of importance. I would think the first paragraph should encapsulate the whole subject in as few words as possible, i.e. mentioning the economic difficulties over which he presided and the controversy surrounding his resignation. (I do understand that you get to that very shortly; all I'm questioning is the order in which the information is presented.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on second reading follow.
I'm finding I have little to add. I want to commend you on dealing with political matters in a NPOV way; I can't tell from the article on which side (if any!) you fall. :)
You're already well-aware of the referencing issue, so I won't belabour the point.
At some point on its journey to FA status, the article might benefit from a political map showing which areas of Alberta supported Brownlee and which opposed him.
It wasn't immediately clear to me that the UFA was a political party. Maybe this is because I need more coffee, but that could also benefit from some explanation, as well as identifying Brownlee's opposition parties more clearly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review. As you've gathered, I've made some modifications following from some of your comments. I'll see what I can do on the map front, though I may be at the mercy of somebody who, unlike me, isn't totally inept at these things. As for the UFA being a political party, the trouble is that it kind of wasn't. In the 1920s, the rules for what constituted a political party were somewhat less ironclad than today; I'm pretty sure anybody could have whatever they wanted stuck next to their name on the ballot. The UFA was actually primarily a lobbying organization and one that provided services to its members; I'm leery of stating outright that it was a political party, and I'm concerned that any kind of depth on the question of what the UFA was would be out of place in this article. But I'll put some more thought into it; thanks again for your review and kind words. Steve Smith (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]