Talk:Nellie McClung/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Criteria checklist

I'm going to take on this review. I'll start off with a brief checklist of the criteria and then move onto a section-by-section review.

1. Well written  Yes Most of the prose is clear and it's easily understandable to me, as someone unfamiliar with the subject.
2. Verifiable  Yes The sources are well-presented and broadly reliable. No passage goes uncited and Earwig doesn't throw up any clear copyright violations. All of the sources are verifiable, with several links provided for the print sources.
3. Broad in its coverage  Yes All of the main aspects about the subject are addressed in sufficient detail and it doesn't veer off topic.
4. Neutral  Yes Presents the subject in a well-balanced manner, covering both the good and bad aspects in a neutral manner.
5. Stable  Yes No significant changes or edit warring has occurred recently. Vandalism by single-purpose accounts and IP users has been dealt with by various users, without leading to edit conflicts.
6. Illustrated  Yes Article includes 5 images, each well-placed for the concept being illustrated.

On first read, it appears there will be no problems in passing this article. The issues I've found are few, minor, and easily addressed. Stand by for section-by-section analysis. Well done @Ingenuity:, you've done some good work improving this article. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Two issues here:

1. The lead mostly dates its statements at the end of each sentence, but there is one case of a dating appearing at the beginning of a sentence, leading to it reading like this: "in 1936. In 1938," I suggest moving the "in 1938" to the end of the sentence.

 Done Moved.

1. I'm not sure her support for eugenics is notable enough to be included in the lead, given it's not mentioned with much more detail in the section about it, so it may be worth striking its mention from the lead. Furthermore, it states that "she has also attracted criticism for her support of eugenics", but nowhere in the article does it mention the who/what/when/where/why of the alleged criticisms, so this reads as OR.

 Done Removed.

--Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Early life

1. Not sure mentioning the location of the Souris River Valley in relation to Winnipeg is necessary, considering Winnipeg only enters the story in later sections when McClung moves there. Did the family move to the Souris River Valley because of the low quality soil in Chatsworth? If so it may be worth elaborating the connection.

 Done

1. I think the inclusion of the Nellie McClung Foundation source is unnecessary. This sentence is already cited to a reliable source, in MacEwan 1975. It doesn't really need an extra source from a self-declared "Anecdotal timeline", written by a foundation directly connected to the subject, especially if that source isn't used elsewhere in the article.

 Done Removed.

1. Use of the name "McClung" before she marries into the McClung family is confusing, especially when she meets Annie McClung for the first time. Suggest rewriting, maybe using "Nellie" here.

 Done

1. "Nellie stated that Mrs. McClung was the only woman she had met that she would like as a mother-in-law." This reads a bit strange to me. I'd suggest rewriting slightly so that it leads into the following sentence more naturally.

--Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Career

1. It says that the sales of her first novel made McClung $25,000. I assume that this was the amount in 1908 and not the amount adjusted for inflation. It may be worth including a note here using the inflation calculator so that readers get an idea of how much money this is.

 Done

1. Perhaps more wikilinks can be added to the names of certain provinces and towns/cities? For readers outside of Canada, these locations may not be clear.

 Done

1. Is the "Herald" just based in Hamilton or is it called the "Hamilton Herald"? If the former, consider clarifying. If the latter, "Hamilton" should be included in the italicisation.

 Done

1. Perhaps some elaboration could be done on the who/what/when/where/why of In Times Like These being an important statement of first-wave feminism.
2. Was Rodmond Roblin already a knight when he was Premier of Manitoba? If he wasn't, of if it is unclear, I suggest removing the "Sir" honorific.

 Done I can't find any sources stating when he was knighted, so I've removed the "sir".

1. For context, it may also be worth mentioning that Roblin was a conservative, given the next paragraph goes on to talk about McClung campaigning for the liberals.

 Done

1. Consider rewriting for clarity: "The McClungs moved to Edmonton, Alberta, before the Liberals' landslide victory in 1915, after Wesley was offered a promotion." Timeline of the sentence currently reads a bit wonky. Perhaps integrate the detail about the liberals winning a landslide victory into the next sentence, as that's where the consequences of that victory are elaborated. Maybe restructure the paragraph a little, so that their move to Alberta leads into the subsequent paragraph.

 Done

1. "The United Farmers of Alberta formed the government, with 38 out of the possible 61 seats. McClung was one of two women who were elected, the other being Irene Parlby." Consider swapping the order of these two sentences, so it leads into the subsequent sentence a bit better. Might also be worth mentioning that Parlby was a representative for the United Farmers.

 Done

1. "[...] the first woman to do so." Reads a bit strange, as she was appointed. Consider rewriting slightly.

 Done

1. Consider merging citations "MacEwan 1975, p. 168" and "Gray 2008, p. 172" into Sfnm.

I don't think this needs to be done, they're fine as separate references.

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Persons Case

1. Should this section not be moved into the "Career" section? Given that this happened between McClung's election loss in 1926 and he appointment to the CBC board, it would maintain chronology to do so.

 Done

1. "[...] it is popularly known as the Persons Case" Was it? The article for Edwards v Canada uses the term "also known as", not "commonly known as" or "popularly known as". This sentence might be worth cutting, to be honest, as I'm not sure the different names for the case are quite so relevant to the subject of an article about McClung.

It is mainly known in RSs as the Persons Case (for example, see The Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood). I have rewritten the sentence to use "also known as" though.

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Later life and death

No notes here really. It might be worth integrating the last paragraph of the career section here, but that's not necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Views

1. Did Francis Marion Beynon specifically criticise McClung's suggestions for racism? If so, clarifying that will do a great deal more than the less specific statement "McClung's views have also been seen as racist."

Added a couple more references to support this statement.

1. If there are criticisms of McClung's advocacy of eugenics, then I would strongly suggest they be included here.

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

1. "McClung and the other five women" McClung was one of the Famous Five, but this implies that there were six women involved. Change "other five" either to "other four women" or simply "other women".

 Done

1. "Two other houses in which McClung lived were relocated to the Archibald Museum near La Rivière, Manitoba in the Rural Municipality of Pembina, before being moved back to Manitou in 2017 following the museum's closure." This sentence is a bit confusing. Is the Archibald Museum not in Manitou? Were the houses themselves moved? Where in Manitou were they moved to? Their original locations?

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography

1. None of the other novels have reprinted editions listed and linked, why does Painted Fires?

 Done removed.

1. Why does The Next of Kin have links to both Gutenberg and Google Books? Considering the Google Books version isn't even readable, I would suggest cutting that one.

 Done

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

1. The ISSN code for Fiamengo 2002 should probably be included. For reference, it's 0316-0300. A version of this text is also available online at ProQuest, so consider adding the link.

 Done

1. The PhD thesis version of Socknat's "Witness Against War" is included, but printed book versions exist and are more readily accessible. Consider switching this out for the 1987 or 2019 versions.

 Done

1. Online versions of McClaren 1990 and Sharpe 1994 exist at the Internet Archive. Adding the links for them will help for verification purposes.

 Done

1. Consider adding OCLC numbers if you are comfortable doing so.

 Done

1. Is there any reason that Warne 2006 is separated from the other sources in the "Further reading" section? It's strange that it's the only source listed as further reading. Consider either:
   1. Moving Warne 2006 into the print sources section and deleting the Further reading section;
   2. or moving Socknat's "Witness Against War" into the Further reading section, as it's not currently cited in the body.

 Done #2, as neither of them are cited.

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Here Nellie McClung's spouse is listed as "Robert Wesley McClung", but everywhere else in the article he's simply named "Wesley". Why is this?

Robert Wesley was his full name, but all sources I've found just refer to him as "Wesley". I've edited to make this clearer.

1. McClung's occupation is curiously listed as "social activist", which isn't exactly an occupation. Consider replacing this with "Politician", and/or "Writer".

 Done

1. Says McClung is known for "Women's rights activist", but that doesn't make sense grammatically. Consider changing to "women's rights activism" or perhaps "feminism".

 Done

--Grnrchst (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Final notes

Ok, I'm more than satisfied with the changes that have now been made, so I will pass this article. My only remaining note is to add some criticism of McClung's eugenicist beliefs, if such criticisms exist in the sources. Congratulations are due to Ingenuity for all their work on this! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)