Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Gavin Reid/archive1

Richard Gavin Reid
This peer review discussion has been closed. I think I'm close to taking this to WP:FAC, and it's always good to have another set of eyes look it over before I do. I'm afraid that I can't be too specific with what I'm looking for; if I knew what the article's weak points were, I'd already have addressed them. Steve Smith (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

 * Some phrases are not written in a strict encyclopedic tone. For example, "an unsubtle attack" seems to reflect a certain POV. There are multiple instances of this type of problem, which for me would mean an oppose at FAC
 * Considerably better: there are still a few phrasings that could be improved (for example, "of cold comfort") and some unnecessary passive voice, but I would now support this at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably oppose at FAC at this point, although I agree that it's close to being FA-level. Feel free to comment/disagree with any of these points. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The images have alt text, but the text for the first image is problematic (a "mand" with "brown hair" in a black-and-white photo)
 * The article links to Richard G. Reid, which in turn redirects back to this article
 * I assume all dollar values are in Canadian dollars? Should specify on first appearance, maybe by linking C$
 * Litre is usually abbreviated with a capital L
 * Should try to avoid very short paragraphs where possible I merged some of the shorter ones, but deliberately left the last sentence of the lead in its own paragraph, because I think it pops better that way. Steve Smith (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "On in Alberta" (should be "Once in Alberta")
 * Should avoid linking the same term more than once, twice at most. Once you've removed some of those, you'll probably need to link some additional unique terms.
 * Two of his offices from the infobox (Treasury Board President and Provincial Secretary) are not mentioned in the article
 * FAC tends to demand a greater citation density than is present here, although so long as every fact is supported I don't think they can justly oppose based on that
 * In "References", Rennie is listed with "pp. 108". pp. is used for multiple pages, and other pages are cited in Notes.
 * Publisher for Finkel?
 * Thanks! With regards to the fifth point, that's using convert, so I gather there's a reason for that.  With regards to the tenth, I used to cite more densely, and got taken to task for it by Tony at my last FAC, so now I avoid consecutive uses of the same cite within one paragraph.  As for the rest, I'll work on it.  Thanks again. Steve Smith (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm striking out your comments as I address them; I'm doing so for my own reference, and I hope that's okay. Steve Smith (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine for all but the first one the list - when you feel you've fixed that, I'd prefer to review it myself. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I'll be glad to have you take another look at that. Steve Smith (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute

 * While it is consistent throughout, is there any reason why this article is in British English rather than Canadian? While he was born in Scotland, he's most associated with Canada. Doesn't really need a change, but I am curious.
 * Basically, I'm quite clear on the difference between British and American English, but not so much on exactly where Canadian English fits on the spectrum. If you want to clarify in which ways the two are inconsistent (as applied in this article), I'd be happy to change it. Steve Smith (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed it immediately with the British date format (d/m/y) rather than the North American (m/d/y), but there are also small discrepancies - i.e.: the British "organisation" rather than the Canadian/American "organization". The entire article, as it stands, is consistently written in British English, and given he was born a Scot, I doubt it strictly needs to change.  It is probably fine as is. Resolute 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "He emerged from the experience with C$160." I'm at a loss to understand the importance of this statement.
 * Me too. Axed. Steve Smith (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "were ultra vires the province under the Canadian constitution." Missing word? Should that read "ultra vires of the province"?
 * Nope:  Steve Smith (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1935 campaign was one of the nastiest in provincial history. Is there anything along those lines that related to attacks Reid received or gave that can be noted?
 * Not really. As far as giving goes, the UFA's strategy was basically to rely on voters to be rational (oh, those crazy farmers).  Brownlee did get in some good jabs, but I figured I couldn't justify including them here.  As for giving, Aberhart was more about railing against the entire establishment than against individuals, and Reid was pretty innocuous in any event.  Howson was somewhat nastier, but he seemed not to have targeted Reid individually much—Brownlee and McPherson, yes, but Reid seems to have been surprisingly non-entity-ish for a Premier. Steve Smith (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, I can't see much in the way of improvements necessary. Cheers, Resolute 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also to add, I have a book on the 100th anniversary of the UFA. I'll see if it has anything to add for this article. Resolute 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)