Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Premiership of John Brownlee/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [1].

Premiership of John Brownlee[edit]

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Premiership of John Brownlee/archive1

FAC has read about the John Brownlee sex scandal, now read about the premiership that it ended. This has been through GAN and PR; my thanks to User:Arsenikk and User:S Marshall at those venues.

I'd like to say a word about criterion 1c, since I expect it to come up: this article relies far more heavily on a single source than I would like it to, and far more heavily than any article I have previously brought to FAC. Given the subject, this is unavoidable: Foster is the only writer to publish extensive secondary material on Brownlee's life and career. Brownlee's premiership has been dealt with incidentally in some other works (see my use of Wardhaugh, for example), and two elements of his premiership (the sex scandal and the sterilization act) have been the subject of academic study in their own right. I've referenced the best of the works on the sex scandal (Brode), but reading the papers about the Sterilization Act did not reveal any new information suitable for an article of this generality. Finally, there are a number of books dealing with more general subjects that contain information on Brownlee's premiership, but while these books are generally secondary sources the portions of them dealing with Brownlee are almost always tertiary sources, sourced almost entirely to Foster's work. I could have sourced information found in Foster's book to some of these other sources that duplicated it, thus giving the illusion of source diversity, but I've opted instead to identify the source where I first found it.

The featured article criteria require that an FA be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I submit that, reliance on a single source notwithstanding, this is. That said, I look forward to addressing reviewers' concerns on 1c or any other criterion. Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foster (1981) appears to be SELF. Can you supply academic peer review of Foster (1981)? Reviews in Journals of Canadian History? This is essential as Foster (1981) is published by Foster Learning Inc., which appears to be edited by Foster. The fact that on his biopage he appears to have been badly photoshopped into an image is not an indication of veracity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look for reviews of that book in particular. Here's an academic review that deals with Foster (2004), which is in most respects a condensed version of Foster (1981). Here's an academic paper that cites Foster (1981) reasonably heavily. Note also that Foster (1981) is an edited version of Foster's doctoral thesis, for which he was awarded a PhD from Queen's University, so this is not exactly typical self-published terrirory. I'll look for something more definitive, though. Steve Smith (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief review appears to have been published in the following: "John E. Brownlee, a biography." Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Text is not available online, so I'll have a look in the library in the next few days. A longer article from the same journal ("An Alberta political revolution and Calgary's Lougheed Building." Alberta History 51.4 (Autumn 2003): p51(3).) cites it and comments favourable on it in passing ("Franklin Foster tells what followed in his well-written biography..."). It's also been written up in such non-scholarly publications as the Globe and Mail, Alberta Report, and The Beaver. Steve Smith (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you've checked Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I checked it last week. There's not much to report: the review ran little over a hundred words, and praised the book as filling a gap in scholarship, but said little else. Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise), and alt text looks good. --an odd name 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first page reads like a biographical article and left me wondering why you hadn't put the man's dates in. But the article is the Premiership. It would be better reworded:

John Brownlee was Premier of Alberta, Canada, from 1925 to 1934 as ......

You don't need to say that he was a politician. It interrupts the flow between his name and the word premier. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change made. Steve Smith (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except for the bold text. --an odd name 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support All concerns addressed. - Wasn't the first name of the girl he was accused of seducing Vivian, not Florence? Connormah (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hell of a mistake for me to let make it to FAC. Thanks! Steve Smith (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I find the sentence, On no issue was Brownlee's relationship with the King government more critical than it was for the control of natural resources. worded a bit strange. Something just doesn't sound right about that sentence. Actually, the more I think about it, I think it;s fine. Great work on another fine article. Connormah (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the problem. Can you specify, or make suggestions to help it read better? Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1c and 2c. I am reassured that Foster (1981) has received adequate review and acceptance from the Scholarly community. The fact that Foster is a practising Historian with a relevant Doctorate from a reputable University; that Foster's work has been reviewed and cited by Canadian historians; and, that it is the expansion of a Doctoral Dissertation which was reviewed, means in this case that we can accept the fact that it is Reliable; thus clearing the 1c issues. 2c is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As usual, just some minor, minor things:
- "After he was re-elected in the 1930 election, things began to get worse for Brownlee." Statement seems out of place in the lead, as the immediate paragraph before focuses on his successes. For things to "get worse" implies to me that they were bad to begin with, which does not seem to be the case.
- It strikes me as odd that Brownlee seems to magically become Premier. It might help to have a quick paragraph at the start explaining why Greenfield resigned and how Brownlee came to be voted UFA leader, and therefore, Premier. Resolute 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comments. I've taken a stab at both of those, though I'm not thrilled with my new wording with regards to the first point. See what you think. Steve Smith (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried another wording that might be a little better? Either way, my concerns are addressed, so

Support. Reso lute 02:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—but the images were tiny; I have enlarged all of the non-portrait ones. Tony (talk)
- Thanks for your support and image work; I am absolutely without aesthetic sense, so anything anybody does to make my articles more visually pleasing or useful is appreciated. Steve Smith (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article draws a truly huge amount of info from one source— about 117 refs from Foster, which is about 90% of the total. • Ling.Nut 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Have you read my explanation above? Steve Smith (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I've read it. Mark me down as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and call me a cranky b*stard if you like, but to my mind, (except in rare instances) anything drawn from one source does not represent our best work. But I guess I can't oppose. So ignore me. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Speaking as Nirvana (band) channeling Emily Litella: Never mind. • Ling.Nut 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't like it either, actually, and I'd understand an oppose. My question wasn't to discount your point, but just to make sure you'd read my explanation. Steve Smith (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.