Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)/archive1

Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm mulling over whether it's worth taking to WP:FAC. It's less comprehensive than I'd like, especially in the area of federal politics, but I can't find much on that front. Accordingly, I'd appreciate any thoughts on this article's compliance with the featured article criteria, in particular the requirement for comprehensiveness. Also, let me assure all of you wonderful people who actually conduct peer reviews that I recently took on my first one, so I'm at least trying to prevent the backlog from getting any longer, even if I'm not doing anything to shorten it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Will undertake a review sometime in the near future. That picture of him in the infobox looks horrible resized though. Is there a better one that can be used there (perhaps his portrait)? Budding Journalist 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do whatever you like with the images; I have no aesthetic sense whatsoever, and I'm man enough to admit it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. I am not an expert on Canadian politics, so I am not a great judge of comprehensiveness. I will point out things that may be a problem if this goes to FAC. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree the lead image looks too grainy. Why not use the official protrait File:Charles Stewart.jpg? Then the infobox image could be used at its actual size elsewhere in the article.
 * While red links are not forbidden in FAC, I always think it looks better to get rid of them even if the article is just a stub. This is especially true of red links in the lead.
 * Sentence is too complex - split it? He served as Minister of Public Works and Minister of Municipal Affairs—the first person to hold the latter position in Alberta—in the government of Arthur Sifton; when Sifton left provincial politics in 1917 to join the federal cabinet, Stewart was named his replacement.
 * Perhaps this is Canadian English? I would add a few words / letters to ... by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), with which Stewart enjoyed good relation[s?]; even so, the UFA [was? became more?] politicized during Stewart's premiership and ran candidates in the 1921 election.
 * It took me a couple of readings to understand this He served in King's cabinet until 1930, when the King government was defeated; in 1935, so too was Stewart. The last phrase ("so too was Stewart") does not quite fit, as a government was defeated, not a person / candidate.
 * I am not familair with the use of "insurgent" in As additional details of the scandal emerged, however, Stewart himself became an insurgent.[3]
 * Perhaps make clearer that premier is a provincial position in Sifton, falling into the latter group, was chosen as Alberta's representative in that government, and resigned as [Alberta's] Premier in October 1917.[11] and His only serious rival for the position of [Alberta] premier was Charles Wilson Cross, ...
 * There's a start for you - seems very detailed to me, so some language rough spots seem like the main problem to resolve before FAC.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)