Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Accurate News and Information Act/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 Karanacs 02:31, 28 December 2009.

Accurate News and Information Act

 * Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I apparently want to make my home province look like a banana republic. Seriously: this legislation was so offensive that the Supreme Court of Canada decided to pretend that Canada's constitution included a bill of rights so they'd have some basis on which to disallow it.

Also, the article is quite short, so if you want to feel like you're doing your part to ease the FAC backlog without actually doing much work (that's certainly my objective), this article might be a good one to review. Steve Smith (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments --an odd name 05:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed a Disney-related dab link; there are no others.
 * External links (all two of them) work, and full dates (all two of those) are ISO style in refs and Month Day, Year in prose.
 * Alt text looks good.

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 04:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support: Although short, the article seems comprehensive, and it's certainly well-written. When I peer-reviewed this article, I liked it a lot, and I haven't changed my mind. On a re-read just now, I found only one quibble to raise. Should Alberta Online Encyclopedia in citation 32 be in italics, and is the publisher Heritage Community Foundation rather than the encyclopedia? Nice article. Finetooth (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. Thanks for your comments, and for the earlier peer review. Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support: I am close to supporting this article, which is well-written and details quite a fair bit over a controversial act. I believe, however, there are some issues that need resolving:
 * A better image would be the title page of the Act's proposal (if it exists on paper).
 * Done.


 * "... one of the traditional parties:"
 * Who are the traditional parties?
 * The Liberals and Conservatives. I wasn't sure how to include that in there without digressing unduly into the general history of Alberta politics (this article already has quite enough digressions for my taste).


 * "The 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt had forced Aberhart to abdicate a portion of his power to ..."
 * A short history of the revolt (basically what caused the revolt) before this statement would do good to avoid disruptions (otherwise readers might jump to the revolt article and never come back).
 * Not certain that I agree. As I said, there are already quite a few digressions here, and I'm concerned about diluting the focus further.


 * "While the initial plan was to have this commission headed by C. H. Douglas, social credit's British founder, Douglas did not like Aberhart and did not view his approach to social credit as consistent with its true form, and refused to come."
 * A bit long and clunky, I advise breaking it up into shorter sentences.
 * Done.


 * "... was also cutting, with one British paper referring to Aberhart as "a little Hitler"".
 * Rephrase to "... was also cutting; one British paper referred to Aberhart as "a little Hitler"." By the way, which paper was it?
 * Done (though I used a colon instead of a semi-colon), and I have no idea.


 * File:Stewart Cameron cartoon Bowen-Aberhart.jpg
 * It seems this image can be adequately expressed in words. The article does not make any critical comment about this cartoon. Basically it only describes that there was a cartoon and it looked like this, but nothing about the impact of this work.  This seems to fail WP:NFCC #1 and 8.
 * I take your point on #8, though I disagree, but what free equivalent are you suggesting exists or could be created (#1)? Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, #1 is "no free equivalent is available"; in this case, text adequately describes the contents of the cartoon and hence, a "free equivalent" (text) is available. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I will support once the above are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for the non-free image issue, I consider the remaining unstruck issues not opposable to my support. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised the image issue at WP:MCQ, where the one editor to chime again agrees with your interpretation. Accordingly, I have deleted the image.  I'd be willing to hear your case on the other changes as well; my immediate reaction is that they're not helpful, though I stand open to being persuaded. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the non-free image was the only thing standing in my way of support. I am not certain of the "other changes" you mention; if they are the unstruck issues above, they are simply improvements I felt could be made, rather than obstructions.  So here is my support.  If images are needed to break up text, the previous Aberhart portrait could do.  Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I have no significant issues  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim. Steve Smith (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.