Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)/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 02:00, 3 August 2009.

Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

 * See Charles Stewart (premier)
 * Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a boring article about a boring man who did some boring things. I'm bothering with it only because I'm trying to make Premiers of Alberta into a featured topic. On the upside, the article is quite short. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Charles_Stewart.jpg - It is unclear how this images is PD Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the tag, it's in the public domain because its creator died more than 50 years ago (in 1938, to be exact). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At least, that's why it's in the public domain in Canada. It's in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Canada as of January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Another finely written article. I really only have two concerns:
 * The description of Stewart's relationship with UFA as being "frosty" seemed a bit odd. It's stated that he was a member of UFA, opposed their politicization, but that he still worked well with them after, and that UFA refused to run a candidate against him, or attack his government.  Suddenly, as a federal minister, his relationship seems much worse, and full of ill will.  There appears to be a gap here where the relationship turned sour.  Or, perhaps, a little clarification that his relationship with the Farmers' government deteriorated upon becoming a federal minister?
 * His post-political career seems mighty thin. Is there nothing that can be said of his participation with the organizations he chaired?  Or any private business ventures? Resolute 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To your first point, good point. Does this help?  Part of the problem is that there's no source that comprehensively covers his relationship with the UFA as Premier and as federal cabinet minister: Jaques and Thomas don't deal with his federal career in any detail, while Foster and Wardhaugh don't say much about his career as Premier.  Reading between the lines, I think he felt a little betrayed that the UFA sought to replace his government after he'd been so accommodating towards them.  To your second point, I haven't been able to find anything, and at this point I'm not sure where to look (I'm almost certain it would have to be in primary sources of some kind).  Note that by the time he left politics he was close to seventy; I surmise that he wasn't all that active post-retirement, though that's just a guess. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think on the first point, it's the word "remained" that I object to. It implies a degradation of a relationship that isn't explained beforehand.  Probably just changing it to "his relationship with the UFA was frosty..."   As to the second, I can't imagine the needle in a haystack that searching through newspapers would be, with the possible exception of checking after the date of his death for an obit that might add more.  It is an odd section though.  In short, it says "Stewart sat on two councils then died" in the first paragraph, while the second is a one sentence rehash of the entire article.  Now THAT is summary style!  ;)  Resolute 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "remained" with "were", and inserted one more sentence (literally the only one I could find in any of my sources) in the section on his later life. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I'm satisfied with the article's quality and comprehensiveness. All images are PD, references look good to me. Resolute 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on sources: all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

''' Not happy yet. ''' Examples from the top:
 * MOSLINK recommends that major countries such as Canada/ian not be linked.
 * Fixed.


 * as his replacement. And another causality that is wrongly used as intransitive: "the UFA politicized during Stewart's premiership". (was policitized?)
 * Fixed.


 * Consider a new sentence for "When Sifton ...". I'm picking up a slightly tendency to overuse semicolons where a stop might normally be used. I say this even though I'm a supporter of semicolon use. See "; even so".
 * I have been known to average more than one semicolon per sentence; I'll do a cull.


 * "Unable to match the UFA's appeal to rural voters, Stewart was defeated at the polls and resigned as premier." Does that mean he was personally defeated in his electorate, or his government was defeated? Isn't resignation as premier a foregone conclusion in either case?
 * Clarified that it was his government that was defeated. And no, resignation as Premier is not foregone - see Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King's decision to remain Prime Minister after losing the 1925 election, for example.  In a Westminster Parliamentary system, the Premier remains Premier until he/she either resigns or is defeated in a parliamentary confidence vote.  While it's customary to opt to resign after losing an election (the assumption often being that defeat in a confidence vote would be imminent), it's not automatic.  Moreover, it was still less a foregone conclusion in this case, since there was thought that Stewart might lead the new UFA government (which I didn't think warranted a mention in the lead, but which is covered quite thoroughly later one).


 * "an agreement that transferred control of Alberta's natural resources from Ottawa to the provincial government"—silliest thing the federal government EVER did.
 * Sorry, I'm feeling dim - I'm rereading this, but I'm not sure that I see the problem.
 * It was a meta-comment: Alberta hogs the lion's share of oil-shale revenue, which many people feel should be shared more equitably through the dominion.


 * "in 1935, so too was Stewart"—clarify here that he lost his seat.
 * Who was Macdonald? Suddenly he bounds into the text ...
 * Hamiltonstone addressed this.


 * Causality treated awkwardly again: "After marrying Sneath, he converted to her Church of England faith.". Sounds forcible.
 * Not certain that I agree here.
 * Sorry, I misread it as "converted her to". It's fine.


 * Ref 1 repeated six times in a row in one para, having made five consecutive appearances in the previous para. Then 3, 3, 3. Can you attend to these repetitions throughout? Better one ref number at para's end, unless there are particularly contentious statements during the para that need to be specifically marked. (But they're mostly trivial.)
 * My own view is (obviously) in line with Hamiltonstone's. I think dense referencing helps guard against the tendency for new material of uncertain provenance being added.  Using a single reference per paragraph makes it easy for unreferenced material to be added to that paragraph while appearing to be supported by the reference at paragraph's end.  Since reviewers are divided on this question, I'll hold off on making any change until consensus develops.
 * Dense referencing is no such guard against subsequent insertions that are not attributable to the source. So sentences 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have a [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], and senctence 2 has no ref? You still have to check periodically, and as a FA you'd have it on your watchlist. What the density does do is clutter the text and irritate the reader. I strongly suggest that you ration the boring repetitions of the ref number to one or two, placed possibly at the end of one of the more important sentences during the para, and at the end (usually, one at the end is preferable, unless it's a long para or has a contentious statement within it). This is a signal to the reader that everything in the para is attributable to that source, as a default. Please have a look at a few other FAs to see how it's done. Like overlinking, over referencing makes the text look unprofessional. WP's editors are expected to exercise judgement here, in the normal practice of academic/research text, rather than slavishly covering their asses by plastering numbers after every single sentence.
 * OK, if this is a sticking point, Steve I'm happy to defer to Tony's greater experience with these things. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I've now removed all consecutive instances of identical references in the same paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "in which he defeated Conservative William John Blair handily"—the last word is colloquial. "easily defeated".
 * Fixed.

Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Referencing needs scrutiny for tedious reps. Tony   (talk)  14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've arranged for a copyedit from User:Roux; hopefully it will meet with your approval. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments leaning to support
 * Excellent scope, structure and good general style.
 * The range of sources seems a little narrow for someone who appears to have been quite a high profile figure, but it may represent all the sound scholarly material available.
 * It does. For context, during this period Alberta's population was well under a million, so Stewart headed the government of an entity that, population-wise, was the size of a small city.  Moreover, provincial premiers during this era, in contrast to now, were figures of relatively minor importance, since it was only the advent of the welfare state (during which government spending on areas of provincial responsibility, such as education and health, increased radically) that elevated them to effective full partners in Confederation.  He has never been the subject of a book-length biography, and the material available on his premiership is in line with comparable figures.  I was surprised not to find more on his federal role, but I've done a thorough survey of the material available about the King ministry and Stewart barely figures in most of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done some copyediting in early parts, but have to stop now - I only hope they are improvements rather than the opposite. I'm not of the same view as Tony, though: I favour dense referencing, even if it is the same ref. If the article gets sliced and diced, that way the refs stay with the material they source - not so likely to be the case if one has one cite at the end of the para. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Your work definitely improved the article, though it added a semicolon to an already semicolon-dense piece of work.  I might revert your change in wording from "insurgent Liberal" to "rival" as it pertains to Boyle, since the latter wording implies to me a greater relationship between Stewart and Boyle than actually existed.  I'm mulling it over. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reveting that is fine. Other points:
 * I copyedited the intro to railways para, but it has a problem - the rest of the para doesn't actually explicitly mention Stewart's role. The people clamoured for their railways, then a bunch of business stuff happened. Where is Stewart in this? Also in same section "drainage of northern areas" lacks context. Are we talking swamps, snow melt, sewerage for towns? Is this readily (and briefly) able to be rephrased for more clarity?
 * To the first point, assuming you're talking about the first paragraph of "Party division", it's intended to set the stage for the rest of the section. The Liberals of 1917 were a house divided for reasons essentially unrelated to Stewart, and those reasons need to be explained if his Premiership is to be understood (his minor role in the railway scandal is covered earlier, under "Earlier political career").  To the second, the wikilinked article states that "Many agricultural soils need drainage to improve production or to manage water supplies", which is what we're talking about here (I presume that snow melt would be the major cause, along with rain).  I could specify "agricultural drainage", if you think that would help.  Otherwise, I'm open to alternative wordings. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The problem is the first para after the heading 'public works'. The railways stuff just isn't linked to Stweart, other than saying it occurred during his premiership. Unless it somehow actually involved him, it probably isn't notable for this article, and if did involve him, we should hear about how. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, that should have been obvious. I've inserted his name in there to add some clarity to the connection, but ultimately any action of the government is attributable to the premier, even if he's not specifically mentioned. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, for some reason i hadn't grasped that the government was acting to intervene in purchasing the company. The insertion of the time has triggered some understanding. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know when Stewart joined UFA?
 * No - we can infer that it was between 1909 and 1919, but that's as good as it gets. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "the UFA was not satisfied with the government's record: in 1918, it found that.." The "it found that" sounds odd in this particular context. "it claimed that", or "it argued that" might be better, depending on the detail.
 * Addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Though he emphatically denied that there would be an election in the spring of 1921 (the last one had been held in June 1917, and four years was the normal life of a legislature in Canada), Stewart eventually called one for July 19". Huh? July isn't in spring - this sounds like it was right on schedule. What have i missed?
 * The "Though" is probably misleading. I've reworded a bit - see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lakeland College historian Franklin Foster, in his biography of John Edward Brownlee,..." This is the first mention of Brownlee, so we need to know who he is (ie. why would this be relevant to Stewart?) As this will lengthen the sentence, I suggest a full stop before "Lakeland College historian..."
 * Clarified. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice ending.
 * I'm a supporter of promotion to FA once the above issues are dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's better, but I still see things that need tweaking, apart from the over-referencing. (I removed a few from the top, and now I see Cite Errors in the Notes: sorry, can you fix? And was there some way of doing it better?)
 * "Newly-politicized" – see MoS on hyphens.
 * Somebody seems to have gotten this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist)


 * "It has been my fight ever since I became a minister to see that the farmers of the province were having a square deal," he remarked, – MoS requires the comma to be after the closing quotation marks (unless the comma is actually in the source.
 * The comma is part of the quotation. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit unusual not to put "p." or "pp." plus space, before the page numbers in the Notes. I support I can live with it.
 * "As MLA" table: a reason to repeat "Turnour N.A." for each one? It's kind of crowded already.
 * Foolish consistency, mostly. I've removed them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Link to "Jasper—Edson". You'd put it out of its misery by moving it to a new title with an en dash. The em dash is wrong, and looks very odd.
 * Steve (User:Steve, that is) seems to have taken care of this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Born in Ontario, he had moved west for economic opportunity, become an important political voice in an emerging province, and then gone to Ottawa to be that province's national voice. As Mackenzie King eulogized him, "in more respects than one, Mr. Stewart's career mirrored the development of Canada itself."—By the time you get to "gone", you've lost the sense of "had", don't you agree? I think here the "had" needs to be repeated twice. But on a larger structural scale, the last, short para doesn't seem to belong here: it's not about the title (Post-political life), but is rather a summary of his entire career – better in the lead, if at all. Why not insert Mackenzie King's statement in the lead, too? But I don't think we should have to go to the physical source to work out what King meant: what were these several respects? If you have it at hand, please consider explicating them in a brief list within the sentence.
 * I thought the last para was a bit short, so i'm happy with the suggestion about giving it slightly more detail. But as to it being in the wrong place, i don't agree. I think a lot of WP articles, including high-quality ones, suffer from a lack of a sense of an ending - something particularly appropriate in bios. Take the last para away and one loses the poetry of the ending, and a great quote from King. And I think the King quote really has added meaning coming after the other rather unkind opinions we are provided, that King expressed in his diary - an effect that would be lost were this material moved to the lead. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hamiltonstone about the paragraph's location, for essentially his/her reasons. In addition, the quote's from a eulogy, which it does make some sense to place in the same part of the article as the death.  As for what the respects were, that's what I was trying to get at with the first paragraph of the sentence: Stewart was born in one of Confederation's original provinces, moved west at a time when encouraging western immigration was among the federal government's major priorities, took the leadership of Alberta when it was emerging as important, and joined the federal government where he played a role in placing it on the same plane, constitutionally, as the other provinces (with regards to natural resources).  Admittedly, this relies on the reader being somewhat acquainted with Canadian history.  I could spell all of this out, and it would expand the paragraph, but it might be a bit much for something that's only tangentially related.  Thoughts? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this will be worthy of promotion when fixed. Tony  (talk)  09:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support and comments A nice article about a boring man, but it wouldn't be FAC without a few nitpicks (:
 * came west to Alberta where are you? I'd prefer went
 * the pair would have eight children maybe the pair would eventually have eight children? - you can ignore this
 * Could you check that every "however" has a useful function and isn't just padding?
 * I had the same problem interpreting the final paragraph. Would changing the order of the two sentences help, so we can see the context first?
 * I shall think about Charlie when I need to sleep...  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  08:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad to have cured your insomnia. I've changed "came" to the more perspective-neutral "moved", and removed one of the howevers.  I'm going to need to think more about the last paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the last paragraph, but I'm not really crazy about the result. Thoughts from all who have expressed views on the subject (and indeed from anyone else) welcome. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well I really liked it. That was the kind of shape I thought it should have, so: well done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.