Talk:1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC) This article appears stable, neutral, and generally well-written. It is generally excellent, if a little long in proportion to the significance of its subject, but it certainly ensures comprehensiveness. My quick check suggests all images are in order.

Specific points

 * Background: para 1 lacks any referencing at all.
 * Done.


 * Background: It would help if Douglas' nationality is mentioned in the sentence where the man is first named.
 * Done.


 * Background: "While Douglas assiduously avoided making specific comment on Aberhart's proposals,[3] he had submitted them to his Social Credit Secretariat for review; it found them to be "fallacious from start to finish"." which "he" and which "his"? Sentence is unclear.
 * Clarified, I think.
 * Almost. In the phrase "he had submitted them to his...", I cannot tell who "he" is and who "his" is. One seems to refer to Aberhard, the other to Douglas?? But really, I'm guessing. If we can just fix this, the article is good to go for GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, I think with Aberhart's name removed from the sentence, it's clear that all of the pronouns refer to Douglas, no?
 * I see your point, but even having recognised that, I still found it hard to read without thinking that Aberhart must be the subject of one of the pronouns. I tweaked it to try and eliminate that impulse :-) I'm happy with it now, if you are. hamiltonstone (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The dissent becomes overt: "Blue, again echoing Duggan, threatened on March 16 to vote against the government's interim supply bill which, under the conventions of the Westminster parliamentary system, would force the government's resignation." I am puzzled by this. Blue's threatened action on its own could not cause the government's resignation. Social Credit had a massive majority in the legislature. Even allowing for a number of dissenters crossing the floor, i would have thought Aberhart still had a majority. Under the Westminster convention, only the failure of the supply bill to pass would cause the government to fall. Can an editor clarify?
 * Clarified that only the actual defeat of the bill, and not merely Blue's opposition, would force the resignation of the government. The significance of mentioning this is i. it makes Blue's dissent all the more noteworthy, and ii. given that Blue was part of a group (of indeterminate size) of Social Crediters who opposed the government, his over opposition could have (and to an extent did) touched off a stampede.


 * The dissent becomes overt: "Surprised by this manoeuvre". Which manoeuvre?
 * Clarified.


 * Social Credit Board and commission: " Aberhart fired Chant, a known Douglasite". We are too far in the text from the only previous mention of Chant to remember who he is or from what capacity he would be fired. Suggest repeat his office here.
 * Clarified, though I didn't identify his portfolios again (there is no way of indicating that he was the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Industry that doesn't sound unwieldy - "Minister of Agriculture and Trade and Industry"?).


 * Social Credit Board and commission: "Whatever its membership, it was empowered to appoint a commission of between three and five experts..." Yet only two are later mentioned. Does this mean the commission was in breach of the Act?
 * Unclear. My assumption is that the commission was rounded out by a person or people who didn't much matter, and is accordingly not mentioned in any sources.


 * Aftermath: "majoritarily". Not in my dictionary!
 * I'm a believer that any adjective can be converted to an adverb with the addition of "ly". Nevertheless, in a concession to actual linguistic authorities, I've reworded.

That's it I think. I've made a number of copyedits which editors should check to ensure i retained the correct meanings. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All copyedits look good; thank you. Steve Smith (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you can just look at the one outstanding issue above, this should all be done. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)