Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbert Greenfield

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:43, 29 November 2008 [1].

Herbert Greenfield

Nominator(s): Sarcasticidealist (talk)

This is a self-nomination, as I wrote the bulk of this article. It has since been subjected to the helpful comments and improvements of a Good Article reviewer and two peer reviewers, and I now submit it for consideration here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just wanted to point out a few minor MOS issues I noticed in a quick look at the article:

Please use endashes, rather than hyphens, in page ranges.
Emdashes should be unspaced; alternatively, you could use spaced endashes for this purpose.
For the citations to online sources, you can achieve 'month day year' dates (as you have used in the article text) by using the accessmonthday= and accessyear= parameters instead of accessdate=.

I'll try to get back to read the article soon. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All above issues have been addressed; thank you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HerbertGreenfield.jpg - The author for this image is listed as "Provincial Archives of Alberta" - is that accurate? It seems more like the photographer would be "unknown". Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; that's the only picture in the article that I didn't upload myself, and I missed that when going over it. Fixed now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)

Not sure I catch what "otherwise" refers to there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me copy-pasting from something else (grins) You're good, don't worry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great job. No concerns. --maclean 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article does a good job of setting Greenfield in context - though I didn't know anything about him or this period of Canadian history, I had no trouble following the biography. The quotes from the newspapers were particularly well-chosen - they added a nice 1920s flavor to the article. The article seemed to cover all major areas of this person's life and career, its sources are reliable, its prose is excellent, and its images are helpful.

This website indicates that the source is reprinted from another publication. We need to include the original publication information, as that is what determines the source's reliability. It looks reliable to me from the information here. We just need to provide that information to the reader. The citation in the footnote also needs an access date.

Thanks for all of your hard work in researching and writing this article! Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind comments. I believe I've addressed your concern. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information about the book that needs to be added to the note: author (D. Blake McDougall), publication location (Edmonton), date (1991). The note should say something about it being republished on the website. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ I said I'd get back here eventually! This is in good shape. Just a few minor quibbles:

"He was elected to the organization's executive in 1919 and chaired its mass conventions in 1920 and 1921" - elected to the organization's executive? I can't tell if there is a missing word here, or if this is a turn of phrase I've not run across before.
~~"Once the legislature convened in 1922, the inexperience of the Premier and his caucus were further laid bare." - subject-verb disagreement~~
"While Greenfield had hardly been the driving force behind the increases, he had facilitated them and had been blind to the impression made by paying MLAs more for six afternoons of work than some farmers were able to earn in a year." - I had to read this twice to parse it properly; 'blind to the impression made by' is tough reading. Perhaps 'blind to the implications of'?
"Reid impressed on the cabinet the need for drastic economy in all departments and, by 1925 (the last year of Greenfield's Premiership) the government at last showed a surplus, a state that would persist until the beginning of the Great Depression (with the exception of a small deficit in 1927)." - a comma directly after a conjunction only makes sense when used with another comma to set off a phrase. Not sure if you meant it that way—'and, by 1925 (the last...Premiership), the...'—or if you meant it to join before the conjunction: 'departments, and by 1925...'. Prefer the former.
~~An accessdate is needed for this online source:"The Honourable Herbert Greenfield, 1921–1925". Alberta Online Encyclopedia. Heritage Community Foundation.~~

Thanks for an interesting read. Maralia (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've fixed your second, fourth, and fifth points exactly as you suggested. I tried a different solution to your third point, as I don't think "implications" quite captures the intended meaning (I originally had "optics", but the GA reviewer took issue with that); see what you think. I haven't done anything with your first point because I don't see the problem: even adjusting for false positives, there are more than "elected+to+the+executive"+-committee+-branch&btnG=Search&meta= 62,000 Google hits for the phrase "elected to the executive". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes noted, and I've switched to support. I'm still not entirely sold on 'elected to the executive'; this usage appears to be far from common—only 4 of the first 50 results in your search use the word in the sense you have here. The rest use 'executive' as an adjective: 'elected to the executive board/management/council', etc. Perhaps not surprisingly, 3 of the 4 supporting results are on Canadian sites. I'm not going to keep picking on a single phrase, but I hope you'll consider rephrasing for those of us who don't have the benefit of being Canadian :) Regardless, it's a testament to the excellent work you've done that I have only this small quibble. Well done, sir. Maralia (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks in my search seem to have broken the link. The search I made is as follows:

"elected to the executive" -committee -board

This search still yielded more than 62,000 hits, from an apparently geographically diverse set. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.