Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA2

GA Review

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) · Watch

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Szmenderowiecki, I've been eyeing this up for a while. I'll ping you in a few days when I have a completed review. I'll be doing it in chunks so you'll see me adding some stuff as I go. Also - I'll be doing some copyediting as I go, so please check my edit logs and revert anything you disagree with. grungaloo (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Szmenderowiecki, I've finished my review. Honestly I think there are some larger issues with this article that need to be overcome, but given how long it's been waiting for a review it's only fair to give you a while to fix these. I'll put this review on hold, but please ping me if you have any questions. grungaloo (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments below, some issues with clarity. Prose is reasonably well written. Sections/layout are good

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See comments below, some lines need cites, especially those with quotations. Otherwise, spot checked about ~10% of refs, particularly Saint-Aubins and Dumas and found no issues. Only copyvio detected relates mostly to quotes or proper nouns. WP:SYN issues addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Needs more detail about the end of his premiership. Linked back to main article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Honestly this is one that could easily fail NPOV, Duplessis welcomes controversy, but this is handled well. It sticks to the sources, and I feel presents Duplessis fairly based on what others have written about him

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No signs of edit warring

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensing of images is good, but there's too much media that doesn't serve any purpose. I've made comments below detailing further. Media pared back a bit.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments

• There's quite a bit of media here, pictures, videos, and audio files, and I'd argue not all of it belongs. For instance in the 8 pictures in the first section, do we need a picture of the Chateau Frontenac, or two pictures of his cabinet? Do these add much to the understanding of the article? In other instances, like the video about the flag of Quebec, is that relevant to Duplessis? It would makes sense on the flag article, but maybe not here since this is about Duplessis himself. I'd suggest taking a look through and cutting out what might not be benefiting the article.

OK, so I will admit this article is (mostly) a translation from French, and over at fr.wiki the standards for GA/FAs are ridiculous (I am translating Le Touquet and even though it's an FA, it's a total mess with a clear overload of media). I guess we can stay with one image of his cabinet and remove Chateau Frontenac. The flag video is relevant to Duplessis given he was the one who signed the Order-in-Council, so I think this one should stay. Any other suggestions are welcome

• Translations are done inconsistently, both in quotes and in names of documents. I'd go through and make sure that you use one style consistently.

OK, I'd like to see the styles I used and maybe we will find one to use throughout.

• Quebeckers and Quebecers are both used throughout the article, I'd suggest picking one and making the use consistent throughout.

I tried to use Quebeckers so as not to repeat "French Canadians" or when it referred to anyone living in Quebec and not the Québécois, will fix it.

 Done

• Some things in the lead aren't mentioned in the body, like the Grande Noirceur.

The point is that this article is almost exclusively based on fact and not the clash of opinions I assessed in the historiography section of the main article, but it also cannot be fully detached from the main article. I deliberately separated the two because otherwise the article would have been too big. So the lead kinda had to refer to the lead of the main article. Besides the stereotype that most Quebeckers have is Duplessis=Grande Noirceur, so that was another reason to do just that.

• This article ends abruptly - I'd expect a short description of his passing in office and briefly what the aftermath of that was.

That's in the main article. I can make the same insert like "for his death and debate over his legacy, see main article" if that's OK with you. No need to repeat ourselves, that's outside the scope of the article.

I addressed it in the way I proposed.

First Government

• however, Philippe Hamel, one of the main ideologues of the Action libérale nationale,- Use ALN since it's used earlier. Goes for any subsequent mentions too.

Fixed

• Camillien Houde, who had a feud with Duplessis, unexpectedly decided to resign from his mayorship of Montreal, citing bad relations with the new Premier, despite a looming election three months later (Houde lost it to a candidate favoured by the Union Nationale) - Houde lost what, the mayorship? But if he resigned he didn't really lose it. Maybe reword that it was won by the other candidate instead.

He lost the mayoral election, I hope this is clearer now

• Duplessis quickly became conflicted with his minister of roads, - Do you mean "came into conflict with"? "Became conflicted" makes it sounds like he just regretted his choice, I think you mean that the two actually butted heads.

Changed wording

• after Duplessis failed to keep up on his electoral pledges to fend off foreign capital. - It's not clear what is meant by "fend off foreign capital" - fend off from doing what exactly? I think you expand on this later, but I'd move that up here, or at least a quick explanation.

Basically during the 1935 election, he said his (Conservative) platform would be the same as the ALN, and ALN said "we don't want foreign capital in our province, French Canadians deserve to own the province's businesses themselves". He kind of had to do it, but when the moment came to actually implement the agenda, he reneged on his election promises and essentially allowed anyone with money into the province. According to Merriam-Webster it's totally appropriate to use "fend off" the way I did.

• Duplessis also resented the nationalization of hydroelectric plants, as some ALN members proposed while the Union Nationale was still a coalition. - Bit confused here, were the plants already nationalized, or did Duplessis nationalize them because of the ALN faction within his party?

No, the plants were private property until 1944, they just ran with that slogan in the 1935 (and to some extent, 1936) elections. Duplessis hated it, nationalists were desperate to do it. I fixed it.

• Duplessis launched a program of assistance to needy mothers (but not to unwed, divorced or separated women) - Unwed/Divorced/Separated, were these mothers or just women in general? If mothers, I'd replace women with mothers.

If the women had no children, they were ineligible for assistance. Neither were unwed, divorced or separated women, so only married women with children. I fixed the wording.

• (C$2,870,000,000 to C$5,259,000,000 in 2020 dollars) - Template:Inflation an end_year isn't specified here, so it might not be "2020" dollars anymore. I would suggest adding an end year (probably 2023) so that it stays consistent.

I fixed that via {{Inflation/year|CA}}

• and the tempo of the emission of obligations during his first term exceeded that of all of prior administrations since Confederation - Could this maybe be reworded or simplified? "Tempo of the emission of obligations", isn't not very clear what is meant here. is it he took on more debt in his first term than previous administrators?

He did. I simplified the wording.

• Fair Wage Act (French: Loi des salaires raisonnables) - You say "French:" here, but in other places where you give the French term for something you don't. I'd check through to make sure your usage is consistent.

Please do, I used the lang-fr template here. If I didn't do it elsewhere, flag any fragments where you believe we should have French.

• "fair wages" ($4.80–$24 per week, which is $88.27-$441.35 in 2020) - Same comment about the inflation template as above.

Fixed

• "He justified his refusal by stating that "Stalin and his accomplices, including the usurper government of Poland, [...] want[ed] to establish an atheist regime, a godless government which is repugnant to the province of Quebec." " - Here and a few others places where you've translated quotes from French, refer to MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. I think you could add a footnote which includes the French unaltered and be good.

Added the quote from French

• Act to Protect the Province Against Communistic Propaganda, - again for consistency should have the french name alongside

It's there now

• which tied its enaction with Cardinal Villeneuve's supposed undue influence on the government - We haven't heard about Villeneuve yet, maybe quick explanation of why he's important (Cardinal of Quebec)? Also, should wikilink all of "Cardinal Villeneuve" to the person, not breaking up "Cardinal" and "Villeneuve"

The explanation is too large to fit there, we have a whole section for why his (or any other Catholic high functionary's) opinion was important in Quebec; but even then you don't introduce a crucifix throughout the province and then into parliament on a whim. I changed the wikilink to Cardinal Villeneuve.

• and the law provided no appeal to those expropriated - Expropriation means the seizure of assets, is this expressly what the law did?

The source (erroneously) used the term "expropriated" as in permanent seizure, but the law's text allowed for temporary seizure of assets for up to a year and did not allow any appeal from a trial judge's order upholding the Attorney General's finding that the house or whatever was used for communist/Communist purposes. So you were at risk to become homeless because you were a communist (or anything resembling that).

• losing the premiership to Adélard Godbout. - You talk about the Union Nationale earlier in the sentence, so you should keep consistent and refer to the party that won. You'd still be good to mention Godbout was the leader.

Fixed

Second government

• Despite these obstacles, Duplessis would rule the province until his death. - Missing a cite

Doesn't need a cite, he died in office and that's something that is already in the main article.

• Duplessis was the third and the last long-serving premier prior to the Quiet Revolution - This is a confusing sentence, I'd probably drop it.

I don't see it. Before the Quiet Revolution, there were three figures that really defined Quebec's politics on the long term: Gouin, Taschereau and Duplessis. Duplessis is the last of them.

I removed the second "the" and I think it reads better. "the third and the last long-serving" doesn't require that the two qualifiers be interpreted jointly, and it can be read as "the third premier prior to the QR, and the last long-serving premier prior to the QR", which isn't correct. Dropping the "the" requires it to be read as "the /third and last/ long-serving premier". It forces the qualifiers to be associated with "long-serving premier".

OK, thanks.

• Duplessis profited from the tailwinds, but his support was also in many respects due to the internal political climate of Quebec as well as some campaign innovations. - Missing a cite. Also, "profited from the tailwinds", I'm not sure what's being implied here? Could just say he benefited from the political conditions.

That's what is being described in the following two or three sections, so I don't think we need to cite it. I paraphrased it.

• many provincial-level government agencies that were supposed to be functioning by law did not - "Functioning by law" sounds odd - were they legally required to be extant and working? Maybe try rewriting.

Idk about common law systems, but in civil law systems, and Quebec is one, if you say "there is a three-member commission", then you have to appoint three members for that commission and it has to work. Having not enough staffers could be grounds to question its decision in court. Also, in the footnote I describe a parliamentary commission, but then the parliament is not the government, at least technically.

• $3 million (equivalent to $36 million in 2020 dollars) or more,[69] and they rose further to $5 million in 1952 ($49.9 million in 2020) and to $9 million in 1956 ($89.1 million in 2020).[70][h] By the end of Duplessis's rule, the party's war chest ballooned to $18 million ($167 million in 2020). - Same end_year comment I made earlier.

Fixed that.

• Pork barrel spending was a norm before elections to the Assembly, - I think you can drop "to the Assembly"

Done

• Campaign Innovations, a bis of MOS:SANDWICH here. This is a potential target for cutting some media.

What exactly do you want to cut? So maybe one of Lavigne's lectures could go (choose which), but other than that? One is an example of his pamphlets and the other is Duplessis's image, which was consistently used in all Union Nationale election communications and which is described in-text.

It looks better now that it's rearranged

• election posters and the more and more plentiful merchandise increasingly featured Duplessis - What is this merchandise? Could you add a few examples?

That's what Lavigne talks about in his lectures. Mugs, calendars, watches etc.

• but Alexandre Dumas writes that the revival of this adage - I'd explain who Alexandre Dumas is, i.e. not the writer of the Count of Monte Cristo

Good point, will do.

• the press was not enthusiastic or outright hostile to Duplessis - The way this is written sounds like the press was not enthusiastic but was also not outright hostile. Is that correct? Otherwise, I'd say "and in some cases were outright hostile towards Duplessis".

Good point

• (see relevant passage). - I'd wikilink the journal itself and get rid of this parenthetical.

OK

• When the money appeared in late '40s - Where did it appear from? I'd drop this.

The economy went out of crisis and the military no longer consumed as much money, so it appeared in civil circulation.

• As a response to the onslaught of these films, - Onslaught seems like the wrong word. Maybe something like "As a response to these films".

Yeah, I agree

• though paradoxically Duplessis intervened less frequently into the SCP than Godbout - Who's Godbout? Without knowing who they are, it's not clear why this is paradoxical. I'd suggest dropping if it's not needed.

It's not a major detail, but Godbout refers to the premier who ruled in 1939-1944. The paradox is that even though Duplessis had a strong grip on the censorship apparatus, SCP was even more tightly controlled under Godbout, who is not commonly recognized as the one who promoted censorship or propaganda in society.

• Adélard Godbout nevertheless ceded the province's power to - Again, no understanding of who Godbout is at this point, give a quick explanation of who he was.

Premier Adelard Godbout should be ok. We know from earlier he's the one whom Duplessis lost the 1939 election to.

• There has been some criticism of his autonomism from various groups, both to the left and to the right. - I'd replace left/right with "on all side of the political spectrum"

Changed to yet another formulation.

• Flag of Quebec - This section could probably be shortened. Most of the first paragraph could probably be cut and I'd shift the focus onto Duplessis' impact on this issue.

There isn't much to say there, but to me an introduction is in order.

• He proposed that no coat of arms should appear, and tha - Who is "he" in this section? A few names are listed in the previous sentence, I'd name the person rather than saying "he"

Named

• its control of Canadian companies amounted to single digits - Single digit percentage, or just single digit? Like they controlled <9% of businesses, or <9 business altogether? I'd specify the exact number/percentage.

<9%

• In the long term, the budget was balanced and more years saw surpluses than deficits. - This is a contradiction. A balanced budget means no surpluses or deficits. Could you double check what is meant by this?

It's not a contradiction. In 1944-1959, the overall trend of the budget was that expenditures = revenues, almost to the cent. When you split it into years, most years had small surpluses and election years had deficits but on a four-year cycle, it was balanced.

The source you're using doesn't seem to support this. It says that spending and revenue grew at a similar pace but not that they were equal/balanced. I can't find anything in the source that talks about the budget being balanced over the entire period. Could you please provide me the page number/passage where this is said?

Grungaloo, page 576 says this: La croyance générale dans l'historiographie canadienne veut que Duplessis ait été extrêmement conservateur, idéologiquement et financièrement. D'une part, nos données corroborent cette idée d'un gouvernement vivant «selon ses moyens». Les dépenses et les revenus évoluent de façon très semblable et les surplus budgétaires sont plus fréquents que les déficits (voir la figure 1). It is also supported by table 2 (p. 569-570), where the net increase of debt is under the emprunts column (negative numbers are for years when the province decreased its debt load). The "autre part" speaks of rapidly increasing expenditures, particularly on education, but this was offset by increases in tax receipts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Les dépenses et les revenus évoluent de façon très semblable - This means they grew at a similar pace and not that they're equal/balanced. Also, a balanced budget refers to one where expenditures = revenue. Table 2 only shows revenue and borrowing, but not expenditures, and can't be used to determine if a budget was balanced. You can fix this issue in text by saying "In the long term, government revenue and spending kept pace with each other" or something to that effect. grungaloo (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For me, the measure of how much they borrow is an indicator of how much surplus they have, but so be it, I won't be an asshole about that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• As much as 3,900 sq mi (10,000 km2) of territory was granted for exploration to Hollinger North Shore Exploration Co. - This is an incomplete sentence. Did you mean to join it with the following one? It's missing a comma if so.

No it's not, it's fine as it is. I deliberately split that sentence in two, so the text starts with "That company" (North Shore).

• form of paternalism that must be avoided, and stressed that the government "cannot replace charity and philanthropy". - A source is needed after a quote.

The source was there, but I doubled it just to be sure.

• or for private medical insurance packages (67.8% of total costs) - 67.8% of what total costs? Do you mean of all money spent by individuals on healthcare, 67% went to insurance? I'd maybe drop this, I'm not sure if it's needed.

Reformulated it.

I acknowledge the ping, will address your concerns in due time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Grungaloo I went through your suggestions and I implemented most fixes you proposed. I am waiting for further feedback. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with your responses, the only issue I have is with the wording of the balanced budget because the source doesn't support this claim. Once that's resolved I think this is good for GA. grungaloo (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (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.