William "Tiger" Dunlop edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to see this article included in the Canadian Biography/History and Ontario History banners.
Thanks, CJ_WeißSchäfer 18:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Review by user MBelgrano
- Article name The name of this article does not follow Wikipedia:Article titles. It should be either "William Dunlop" or "Tiger Dunlop", whichever is most common, but a real name with the nickname between quotes in the middle of it, not. However, if you move it, consider to move as well this review page and update any broken links to it.
- Lead The lead is little more than a mere enumeration. It's of little use to simply list all the things someone was; try to provide the most core ones for the first sentence and follow it with a brief summary of his biography: what did he start doing, how did he gain notability, and how did he moved to the other areas. "office holder" is a very generic term. According to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, you should try to avoid gratuitous uses of "is notable for..."
- Image Considering that you are using a non-free image, you should be able to find a better one than a mere blured grey reproduction of a portrait or photo. And there's a problem with the current one: it does not state who did actually create it (the 1976 book is clearly reusing someone else's work, by such date nobody would "create" an image like this). Clear authorship must be provided; and perhaps it may be possible to move it to Commons.
- Extension I don't really know anything about this man, but I can bet that the article is short. With such a big bibliography, it seems clear that there should be much more to say about him. Sections should be longer than just one short paragraph, they should be expanded or merged. For example, if he was a member of the parliament, it may be interesting to read a little more about wich projects of law he supported or opposed.
- Words to avoid there are some informal words that be replaced by more clear ones, such as "colourful character" or "interesting speeches".
Those are some of the things I noticed so far MBelgrano (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
CJ_WeißSchäfer 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there MBelgrano. Thanks for the review. As you've said, you don't know William "Tiger" Dunlop. But you have been rather insightful whether it was by design or circumstance. So I will address your comments.
Article Name: William "Tiger" Dunlop is actually how this man is known. I can cite some current correspondence between souther Ontario librarians or correspondence contemporaneous to him to support this.
Lead: You're right about the enumeration quality. I will work on this.
Image: Without obtaining copyright rights from the National Library of Canada, this is the best of the images available to me.
Extension: This is where you hit the nail on the head. There is no reason to spend much time on Dunlop's time in parliament. Authoritative sources tell us that Dunlop was known for his humorous speeches and friendliness, and not much else. The point in him becoming a Member of Parliament was to stop Bishop Strachan from becoming the sitting member. The two ran against each other; the Bishop fixed the results and after Dunlop challenged, Dunlop won and became the sitting member. This is really a battle of good versus evil with Dunlop as a Canadian Robin Hood and the Bishop as the bad sheriff. Notwithstanding Dunlop employment with the Canada Company, the Bishop represents the interests of the Canada Company and the Family Compact. Dunlop respresents the interests of the settlers--some well-off, some not. The Canada Company had a habit of robbing the settlers and then selling back to them that which belonged to them in the first place. Dunlop was able to keep the feud under control with his sense of humor, oratory abilities, and his ability to keep the real objective in mind. The objective was to have Canada populated by British immigrants; something which would not happen if the Bishop et. al. continued to rule to the province. Having said all this, you may ask why this isn't in the article. Mainstream Canadian history describes the Bishop in terms of his religious duties thus rehabilitating him; it does not concentrate on his political and social asperations. My thoughts above are confirmed by a few academic thesis and the literature of Upper Canada, but would be challenged by the current historical paradigm. I believe it is more important to raise Dunlop to the place he deserves in Canadian history, than to engage in a useless battle of historical revisionism.
Words to avoid: I think after reading the above you will understand why I used those words. They are the words that may cause someone with an interest in the subject to enquire further
Thanks again for the review 99.246.14.181 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)