Wikipedia:Peer review/Herbert Greenfield/archive1

Herbert Greenfield

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm considering bringing this article to WP:FAC, so I'm interested both in suggestions for improving the article and in assessments of whether it's worth bringing to WP:FAC in anything resembling its current form. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First section:

• In the lead, Greenfield has a middle initial, W. Surely this should be mentioned at the beginning of this section?

• Done.

• Is there an article for Wesleyan School?

• I don't believe so.

• "before immigrating to Canada in 1896" Should be emmigrate, since we started in England.

• Done (though with only one M).

• Don't need to have multiple copies of the same ref - just put one at the end.

• In my experience, a one-footnote-per-sentence approach, as I've taken here, is better for a Wikipedia article because there's less danger of material sneaking in that isn't referenced. If I put one reference at the end of a paragraph, it would be easy for somebody to come along and put new material into that paragraph, and that material would appear to be supported by the reference even if it wasn't. This is especially true in articles like this one, in which I use primarily offline sources that a reader is unlikely to have ready access to. In any event, I've been unable to find any style guideline that mandates less frequent use of footnotes.

• "During his first year in Alberta" You haven't said when he moved there yet.

• "In 1904, Greenfield went west for economic reasons and homesteaded near Edmonton."

• "While still living in Ontario, Greenfield had married" Try to keep it chronological.

• In my view, a thematic grouping is more appropriate here, keeping all of the material about his family together (be that at the end of the section or elsewhere).

• Any birth years for their children?

• Not that I've been able to find.

• "In 1922, while Greenfield was Premier" Again, when did he become that?

• This is covered in the lead and will be covered again in the appropriate section. I didn't see the need to cover it in this section as well, because it deals with his pre-political life. I thought it was worth mentioning incidentally that he was Premier when his wife died, though.

• "leaving him devastated" No kidding, his wife died! Is it really necessary to say that?

• On reflection, no; his devastation is mentioned in the section as Premier, where it's more relevant. Removed.

Saving. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's comments

Random stuff:

• I can still see an "immigrate to" in the lead.

• Done.

• "farmers lobby organization" should be "farmers' lobby organization"?

• Yep.

• "that was in the process of making the transition to political party" Better as "that was in the process of making the transition to being a political party"? Or even "that was in the process of becoming a political party"?

• Both of your wordings are better than mine; I prefer the second one, and have implemented it.

• As a UK reader, I don't know what a caucus is; the term's not really used politically over here. Can we have a brief explanation or a link?

• It is linked at one point in the article, along with a bit of an explanation ("UFA members also objected to the concept of a caucus, in which MLAs from one party debate policy behind closed doors."). I've thrown a wikilink in to the first mention of the term in the lead, which I think is probably sufficient.

• I suggest moving that brief explanation further up the main article to the first mention of caucus - I hadn't got as far as the explanation before running into the concept multiple times. 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• I found the jump back in time from the second to the third paragraphs of 'Early life' a bit disorientating, since his wife is mentioned in para two; you could experiment with reversing their order.

• HDYTTO agreed with you above, so I've concluded that I'm probably wrong in my affection for the original arrangement. I've rearranged it somewhat; let me know what you think.

• Yep, better. 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• "He remarried in 1926, to Marjorie Greenwood Cormack who had two children of her own" As in she already had two children of her own, or she had two children with him?

• The former, as I've now clarified.

• For those of us not familiar with Canadian political organisation, it would be helpful to have a very brief indication of the role of the Alberta govenment in relation to the national one.

• I'm leery of providing too much background (my assumption is that this article would be of very little interest to anybody not at least passingly familiar with Canadian politics), so what I've done (which is hopefully satisfactory) is link Premier of Alberta in the lead, where the desired background can hopefully be found.

• OK. My personal choice would be to provide something in the article, but I think perhaps that's a matter of taste. 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• "A Calgary meeting of the UFA caucus", perhaps clearer as " A meeting of the UFA caucus in Calgary"? I clicked on Calgary just to make sure that we were talking about the place, and not some unknown (to me) type of political meeting.

• Absolutely; thanks.

• " selected Greenfield as its choice" Redundant? Can lose "as its choice".

• Yes.

• "won the riding of Peace River for the UFA" What's a 'riding' in this context? I'm sort of familiar with the term as designating an area (West Riding of Yorkshire); does it have a more specific meaning here?

• It does, and I've now provided a wikilink. Apparently this is a uniquely Canadian term for an electoral district; I had no idea.

• "Once in the legislature, however, Greenfield faltered in his leadership of his caucus" Not sure what the 'however' here is contrasting with. Am I being dense, or can it be made clearer?

• It's intended to contrast with the previous sentence, which talks about his easy election to the legislature (i.e. getting in was easy. However, things got harder once he was there.). I've left it as is for now while I mull it over a bit.

• "proved nearly impossible to whip" I do know what this means, and the link is provided as well, but I wonder if the sense could be made clearer in the text.

More later. Hope this is helpful. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC) More follows:

• "seatmate"?

• Clarified.

• "Many UFA backbenchers, however, wanted to see it repealed all together, though, because of their objection to caucus discussions, Greenfield was not aware of this by the time his amendments came to the floor of the legislature" Clearer with 'but' instead of 'though', and probably without the comma after?

• Definitely.

• "They passed through the house with little debate..." It, rather than they? There's only one Act being discussed here, I think?

• "They" refers to "[his] amendments" from the previous portion of the sentence.

• "blind to the optics of paying.." More cross-Atlantic confusion, no doubt, but optics in this context is new to me. I'd expect to see something like: "blind to how paying [the money] would appear to the electorate".

• Reworded somewhat.

• "...the last of these was the source of chagrin for MLAs..." a source of chagrin?

• Yep - fixed.

More later.

• "these continued until June 7, whereupon Brownlee returned home" I think you do mean "when Brownlee returned home" here.

• I don't think I agree. The OED defines "whereupon" as meaning "immediately after which", which seems to capture the intended meaning.

OK, that's me done. Overall, a well written and structured article. As a general comment, I'd say perhaps just perhaps run your eye over the article again with a view to keeping the language as simple as possible, and consider that some of your readers may not be familiar with the context. Well done. 4u1e (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)