Talk:Ed Stelmach/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed Stelmach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall.  passed
 * 1. Well written. see comments
 * 2. Accurate and verifiable. one dead link, references support statements as given
 * 3. Broad. Could use more on his personal/family history, but is complete in political career
 * 4. Neutral. Portrays both accomplishments and controversies, maintains NPOV
 * 5. Stable. No edit wars or ongoing controversies
 * 6. Images. Images are properly licensed and used in appropriate locations

Comments
 * Ref 65 is a dead link
 * The lead is insufficient per WP:LEAD. Specifically:
 * The majority of the article discusses Stelmach's career as Premier. The lead offers no commentary on this, only stating that he is the Premier.
 * None of Stelmach's controversies (and conversely, successes) are mentioned in the lead. As examples: his victory in the last election is significant enough to merit mention in the lead, and I think the challenges he is facing in Calgary are also defining. (Though in fairness, being from Calgary, I may be biassed on this point.)
 * I'd recommend at least a second paragraph discussing his tenure as Premier. The lead should touch on aspects of each major section in the article, and serve as a consise summary of the subject.
 * Several run on sentences. A lot of statements with multple commas, or bracketed additions can be broken up. (I was actually just hammered on this at my FAC for Calgary Hitmen.) Examples:
 * "As a backbencher, he sponsored the Lloydminster Hospital Act Repeal Act, a government bill that dissolved the then-existing Lloydminster hospital board in preparation for a new arrangement compliant with both the Alberta government's new system of regional health authorities and the Saskatchewan government's system (Lloydminster sits on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the hospital, although built and operated by the Alberta government, sits on the Saskatchewan side)." (from MLA and minister)
 * However, the fourth, fifth, and sixth place candidates (Oberg, Dave Hancock, and Mark Norris) all endorsed Stelmach for the second ballot, one in which he finished in first place on the first count (fewer than five hundred votes ahead of Dinning). (2006 leadership contest)
 * In June 2007, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the government-mandated and appointed body responsible for regulating energy resource development, pipelines, transmission lines, and investor-owned electric, water, and natural gas utilities, as well as certain municipality-owned utilities, admitted that it had hired private investigators to spy on landowners who opposed the construction of a major power line in the Rimbey area. (Energy and Utilities Board affair - nine commas! I don't think this level of detail of what the AEUB does is necessary in Stelmach's article)
 * There are more. Please review the article to ensure such sentences are broken up.
 * 2008 election section is underdeveloped. Examples of why critics believed Stelmach's campaign was unorganized would help.  I think also details on why Stelmach won such a huge increase in seats and popular support despite the criticisms would help.


 * Otherwise, I don't see obvious spelling mistakes or significant issues with the prose. A little bit of work, and I think this is easily a GA. It compares well with other GAs on politicians, imo. Resolute 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I think I've made the changes you requested, except that I eliminated the section on the election in favour of moving its content into the general summary of his premiership.  Part of the reason that I did this was that to expand the election section, I would have to include a lot of information about his promises and policies that were already found in the "Premier" section.  I felt that it all flowed better if all of the information was integrated into the "Premier" section rather than hived off.  I did add a sentence attempting to explain the massive majority, though, per your request. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the moving of the 2008 election. I had noticed that it was mentioned throughout.  This helps tighten the election mostly into one section.  I believe this is now a GA.  Congrats! Resolute 16:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)