Wikipedia:Peer review/Council of Keewatin/archive1

Council of Keewatin

 * 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 November 2008.
 * 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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the coucil of Keewatin is a really obscure topic. It was a short lived legislative body, for a short lived territory in the 19th century. I have done extensive research, spending hours digging through 19th century newspapers to dig out information. I would like to try and get this featured if possible. I need help with prose as I am not an english major, I belive it is well referenced and covers everything important.

Thanks, Cloveious (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2008(UTC)


 * second sentence currently says, "The Government of Canada allowed to contain the small pox crisis afflicting Keewatin" which doesn't make sense in context.
 * fixed --Cloveious (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * under Formation, the article currently says, "...the affairs of the District of Keewatin should be administered from Winnipeg as the Northwest Territories was until November 7, 1876." The phrasing after "Winnipeg" doesn't seem to make sense in context.  PK  T (alk)  13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dr pda:
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should mention all the main topics in the article. The fur trade for example is not mentioned.
 * In the first sentence defunct should probably be replaced by now-defunct, as the territory wasn't defunct at the time. Also in District of Keewatin territory, territory is probably redundant.
 * I included that in to avoid confusion with the Keewatin Regional Council that managed the District after it was ceded back to the Northwest Territories. --Cloveious (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the infobox it would be better to give the end date for Morris's appointment, rather than saying since 1876; this implies that he still holds the office!
 * Unfortunately at the moment I am stuck with the limitations of the Infobox. I will try and find something more suitable.


 * It is a bit unclear why the council was set up. From the Formation section it looks like Morris just asked it he could. It might be better to move the first paragraph from the Smallpox section to the beginning of the Formation one.
 * Should state where Morris was Lieutenant-Governor of. Also a map showing the location of the territory would be useful.
 * Should perhaps mention that Ottawa is the federal capital, for the benefit of non-Canadian readers.
 * The Council is referred to once as the Legislative Council and once as the Executive Council. Which is the proper name? Or are these two separate Councils?
 * I believe, I have clarified this. --Cloveious (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Throne speech should be linked to (and possibly rephrased as) Speech from the throne.
 * Fort Garry should be linked.
 * Was William Smith's position chairman, or speaker, or both?
 * Fixed, the source did not clearly specify a title --Cloveious (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by the Act regarding smallpox was "the centre piece of the council"?
 * I think smallpox, rather than Small Pox is the normal usage.
 * Long before I linked the "Smallpox" All the sources I have from the 1870's styled it as "Small Pox". I will change all instances to reflect modern usage --Cloveious (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The information in Image:Keewatingovernment.PNG is not explained/expanded on in the text.
 * Why was the Board of Health "powerful"?
 * In the references section there are mixed date formats, e.g. November 25, 1876 vs 2006-10-19. You can use the  parameters in cite web to get consistency.
 * The whole article needs a copyedit with regard to the prose. There are a number of places where the prose is repetitive, e.g. first and only throne speech. In his throne speech ... The throne speech ... in successive sentences. There are a few grammatical errors/typos, e.g. territories creation, predominate, and The Act and also offered advice. There is slight overuse of effectively. There are a number of other places where the prose could be tightened up.

Hope these comments are useful. Dr pda (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, I will work on these suggestions.