Talk:John Edward Brownlee

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Femke (alt) in topic GAR
Good articleJohn Edward Brownlee has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starJohn Edward Brownlee is the main article in the John Edward Brownlee series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2009Good article nomineeListed
November 12, 2009Good topic candidateNot promoted
October 9, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
February 20, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Edward Brownlee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Notes
  • All 15 images public domain
  • In 'UGG director', they were functionally identical to it - please clarify who 'they' and 'it' are referring to.
  • In Electoral record, % to the second decimal place is probably not a needed level of accuracy (14.85% could be 14.9%).
  • The article is very good. The prose is clear and the references are all fine. It is certainly broad, and is focused on the subject the entire way through. -maclean (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Edward Brownlee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

GAR edit

John Edward Brownlee edit

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Kept citation issues have been addressed. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good lord what happened to this article. There is an entire 15 paragraph streak of uncited material in the article. For some of it, here's

  • Brownlee attempted to leverage his relationship with King to win provincial control of natural resources. He won such an agreement in 1926, but it was soon scuttled by the federal addition of a clause requiring Alberta to continue supporting separate Roman Catholic schools. Wrangling over this clause persisted until 1929, when a compromise was reached. All that remained was the question of compensation to Alberta for land given away by the federal government, and by the end of 1929 agreement on this too was reached. Brownlee returned from Ottawa to Alberta, where he was greeted by 3,000 cheering supporters. Brownlee was similarly successful in divesting the government of its railways. When his initial attempts to sell them to the CNR or CPR failed, the provincial government took over direct operation of the lines in 1927. In 1928, they began to show a profit, and one of the lines was soon sold to the CPR. A joint offer from the CPR and CNR for the remaining lines was judged too low, and they were sold to the CPR near the end of 1928 for $25 million. Control of natural resources and the divestment of the railways were two factors that permitted balanced provincial budgets, the first of which was registered in 1925. Despite this success, Brownlee continued to advocate austerity, and tried unsuccessfully to persuade the federal government to assume a greater share of the costs of new social programs, such as the old age pension. His resulting reputation as a penny-pincher came at a cost to his personal popularity. Brownlee's government also attempted to advance a progressive agenda. One way this manifested itself was an attempt to consolidate Alberta's thousands of school districts into a far smaller number of school divisions. The plan was supported by educational reformers who believed that the decentralized status quo made province-wide reform impossible, but was scrapped when rural residents expressed fears that it would mean the closure of local schools. Another progressive initiative was the Sexual Sterilization Act, which allowed for the sterilization of "mental defectives". While the Act, repealed in 1972, is now viewed as barbaric, at the time it enjoyed the support of moral reformers like Nellie McClung, who believed it was for the subjects' own protection.

I do not know if it got lost when it was split but something needs to change. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Steve Smith, who originally brought the article to GA in 2009, completely revamped the premier section with this edit in 2011. The user might have intended to add citations later, but never did. I think a fairly simple fix would be to reinstate the GA version of the offending sections, which satisfies the requirements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
The content of the section generally summarizes Premiership of John Edward Brownlee#Road to prosperity (1925–29) (Featured Article) which has citations. It would be easy enough to check those citations and add to it. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would really be a shame to delist this article seeing as the sub-articles are featured. The citations are already in the sub-articles. Give me a week and I'll see what I can do. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Steelkamp, do you intend to continue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, please bear with me. Steelkamp (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
My work is done now. It should be good enough to pass. Steelkamp (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.