Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North-West Mounted Police


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

North-West Mounted Police

 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'm hoping to take it to A Class review in due course. I've put a fair bit of research time into this, and consulted with the WikiProject Canada on some of the terminology, and I feel confident it now reflects the wide range of literature on the North-West Mounted Police. Further help with clarity, flow, any miscreant language, etc. would definitely help in taking it to the next step. Very many thanks in advance! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Police_Fort_Walsh_1878.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:North-West_Mounted_Police,_Fort_Calgary,_1878.jpg, File:LastSpike_Craigellachie_BC_Canada.jpg, File:Corporal_Shaw,_North_West_Mounted_Police.jpg, File:NWMP_in_Yukon_in_tent.jpg, File:Troop_front_Canadian_Mounted_Rifles_with_2nd_Contingent,_South_Africa_No_15118a_(HS85-10-11351)_(trimmed).jpg, File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1885.jpg, File:Royal_North-West_Mounted_Police_Barracks,_ca._1904_-_1925.jpg
 * File:North-West_Mounted_Police,_Fort_Calgary,_1878.jpg. There's some interesting history I've dug up on this, which claims to the "first photograph taken in Calgary". Library and Archives Canada lists the author as "unknown"; the copyright claim written on lower right of the photograph is Ernest Brown, which may be the early photographer Ernest Brown, photographer (1877 to 1951), who collected early photographs and negatives. Brown purchased the stock and negatives of C. W. Mathers at the start of his career; Mathers had come to Edmonton in 1891 to open a branch for the Calgary firm of Boorne and May, and later bought their entire collection, which may well be where this negative came from. The 1878 date, however, would predate the arrival of Ernest May and his cousin William Hanson Boorne, who emigrated to Canada in 1882; either the date may be inaccurate, or May and Boorne may have acquired it from another photographer. A photograph of this date would have been circulated for sale through the photographer's shop (the practice was to display them internally, to encourage purchases or new commissions), so would have been published by our definition. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:LastSpike_Craigellachie_BC_Canada.jpg - added. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Corporal_Shaw,_North_West_Mounted_Police.jpg. We can establish for certain it was published after 2002, which would make it in the PD in the US (as the life+70 rule then applies, under the slightly complicated US arrangements). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We can confirm that was first publication?
 * I can't find any earlier evidence, and there's no particular reason to suspect that a sketch would have been published. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:NWMP_in_Yukon_in_tent.jpg
 * As a probable Goetzman image, would have been published for sale around 1898. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Troop_front_Canadian_Mounted_Rifles_with_2nd_Contingent,_South_Africa_No_15118a_(HS85-10-11351)_(trimmed).jpg
 * Unclear. The original photograph and copyright was acquired by the Patent and Copyright Office in Canada, and then given to the British Library, who declare the copyright to have expired and the image to now be in the public domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1885.jpg
 * Probably published for sale in 1885, although if not, would then be an anonymous work with no evidence of publication, US gives this 120 years of protection from creation (1885). Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Royal_North-West_Mounted_Police_Barracks,_ca._1904_-_1925.jpg.
 * Produced by a commercial company that sold photographs, souvenirs and collections of photographs; publication date would have been c.1918. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What is the source of the data presented in File:Canada_provinces_1871-1873_simplified.png?
 * I don't know what the original editor used; it matches up with sources I've seen elsewhere. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1900.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
 * Original circulated by Associated Screen News Ltd., so would meet our definition of publication; 70-yr tag replaced by Canada tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Leth_old.jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Same with File:Christmas_dinner_at_Royal_North_West_Mounted_Police_station,_Fort_Macleod_(15902402559).jpg
 * I've had a look, and beyond the Canada tags, which I've added, no. From what I can see, these are images that would have been acquired with copyright by the collecting institutions, so have probably been effectively released by them when put onto Flickr, but I can't be certain about the process the museum and archive have used. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * File:The_R.N.W.M.P._Detachment_in_training_at_Shorncliffe,_August_1918.jpg: why would this be UKGov? Same with File:RNWMP_operations_in_Winnipeg_General_Strike,_1919.jpg
 * File:The_R.N.W.M.P._Detachment_in_training_at_Shorncliffe,_August_1918.jpg is credited to "government", and is of military personnel carrying out military training on a British base; a Canadian (or British) government photograph of this sort would be covered by Crown Copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * File:RNWMP operations in Winnipeg General Strike, 1919.jpg is credited to "government" and specifically to the mounted police; again, showing government personnel carrying out operational work; a Canadian government or police photograph would be covered by Crown Copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The PD-Canada template covers Canadian Crown copyright though - I'm wondering why we're using UK here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It covers it, but doesn't state that it is Crown copyright - it's the same royal perogative, though. In addition, the Shorcliffe photograph was taken in the UK, not Canada. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * File:StateLibQld_2_126279_Sir_George_Arthur_French,_1883.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tag added; as an anonymous work with no evidence of publication, US gives this 120 years of protection from creation (1883). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "was instead surged": ?
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Looking forward to seeing this at FAC; it's excellent. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyediting Dank! "instead surged" should now be fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I reviewed this article at GA, and I believe that it meets the standards of an A-class article.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

 * Should the article not be titled Royal North-West Mounted Police? Cf. Royal Gibraltar Police, Royal Wootton Bassett.
 * The most conventional usage in the literature for volumes covering both period is just the plain North-West Mounted Police. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The plans for closure were abandoned What plans? Did I miss it or are these not mentioned earlier in the lead?
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * was once again put in doubt Do we need the "put"?
 * No... fixed! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Towards the end of the war, however For reasons I don't fully understand, "however" is frowned upon at FAC. The word is overused and sometimes it's easy to reword the sentence, sometimes it's not. Just something to think about.
 * I think I'll risk this one - it is stressing the contrast with the previous sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just the lead for now. I'll be back with more in the coming days. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Resuming:
 * sent west by rail through the United States Do we know how the US government felt about this? Was there any damage to diplomatic relations given that they'd declined the US Army's help?
 * Not that I can find in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Lieutenant Governor Morris disagreed with this approach, however, "disagreed with this approach" suggests it had been decided but the preceding sentence sounds like it was just one option; also that "however" looks like it could be removed without any great loss.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * gathering to attack across the border in the United States Gathering in the US or in Canada? It looks like the US but it's not entirely clear. Switching the clauses to "gathering in the United States to attack across the border" would clear it up.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

More to follow. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  22:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  The force took two 9-pounder (4 kg) guns and two mortars for protection... I assume they also carried small arms? Worth spelling it out.
 * If I say small arms, I'd also have to include swords etc. - I've added the word "additional", implying that they had other weapons as well... see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I think your addition clears things up. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  07:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * sympathy for the British imperial cause Do we really need the link there?
 * I'm fairly relaxed; I think its helpful to some non-British readers, but wouldn't lose sleep if it were removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there anything more to say about the NWMP's influence on or legacy within the RCMP?
 * Not that I could find in the literature. For many years the RCMP discouraged sociological work that might have provided those insights. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you considered splitting some of the history into a daughter article like History of the North-West Mounted Police? This article is on the long side (12,759 words), which would make it 400 words longer than Barack Obama, currently the longest featured article on the English Wikipedia and it's dominated by the history.
 * The last paragraph sort of leaves the reader hanging. What are the new lines of research? The mention of court cases suggests controversy but the various arguments aren't discussed. What's the narrative of the more recent histories? What do we know about the NWMP as a result of modern scholarship that we didn't know before?
 * I've added a bit more detail in. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

— HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  19:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's space and you can find something appropriate, another map or two of the areas being discussed might be helpful to readers not familiar with Canadian geography.
 * I'd thought something similar, although I struggled to fit one in. Do you think a collapsed map might help? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you know how to do something like that then certainly. It's not something I'd withhold support over, but it did occur to me as I was reading that another map would have been helpful. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  07:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day . This looks about ready to go, but there appears to be a couple of unaddressed points above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the only concern I have that's based on the A-class criteria is the length, and even that I'd be willing to overlook at least at ACR if others don't think it's a big deal. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 08:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth

 * Whew! massive article, and really interesting. I've done a minor copy edit on the first half, added some links, etc.  If it's not ok, please feel free to revert.  I'll come back in a day or two and finish up.  I'll be looking forward to supporting this!  Nice job.  auntieruth (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges
Will start soon. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The North-West Mounted Police was created as a consequence of the expansion" may wish to simply have "due to" rather than "as a consequence", given that no other such consequences are given (and should not be, in order to remain on subject).
 * "The new Dominion government was keen to expand westwards, in part due to fears that the United States might annex the region." is there anything to suggest said fears were founded?
 * "Macdonald's Conservative government then fell from power over the Pacific Scandal" should probably change "over" to "due to", or even "as a result of".
 * "The government ordered an investigation, followed by a judicial inquiry, both of which cleared Herchmer of any serious charges." was he then convicted of non-serious charges? If so, should probably get a short mention. i.e was he jailed, did he get fined 10 pence?
 * That is all my comments, happy to support as is. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly done. Historians are divided on the fears of US annexation question; some look to the events on the southern edge of the US frontier, and see a real risk; others suggest that the Canadian government might have been worrying excessively. Herchmer wasn't convicted of any other charges, but minor issues were highlighted in the report; I can't see an easy way to summarise this without going into a fair bit of detail though. Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, nice work. Please note this isn't a full review as there are already substantial comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * agree that the article is quite long per Harry's comments, but given the length of time this review has been open, I'd suggest that it could be closed as successful with the understanding that the article possibly needs a little reduction before going to FAC (if the intention is to send it there)
 * G'day Harry, would you be supportive of this course of action? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fine with that. I'm explicitly not opposing and we have the requisite three supports. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Too easy, Harry, thanks for responding. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed as successful. Biblio (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * there are a couple of potentially overlinked terems: Fort Dufferin, industrial dispute, Inuit, Snider-Enfield, Lee-Metford,
 * "force- which at the time remained" --> "force, which at the time remained"
 * citation 139: "Hewitt 1998, pp. 352&mdash;53": should be an endash rather than an endash
 * "Commissioner Irvine, who had..." --> "Irvine, who had" per WP:SURNAME
 * Changes made as suggested; thanks Rupert. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.