Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Gavin Reid/archive1
- 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 SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Of the six articles about Premiers of Alberta I've brought here, this is the shortest, which is kind of strange since he's the longest-lived. But he was also the shortest-serving, so it all balanced out. Or something. Anyway, it's been through a good article review and a couple of peer reviews from User:Nikkimaria and User:Resolute. I look forward to reviewers' explanations of why it's still not good enough and I am human garbage. Steve Smith (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright review (
OpposeSupport on criterion 3):- File:Richard Reid.jpg needs something to indicate that it meets US and Canadian copyright. Specifically, it needs either an author or a date of publication, or more preferably both. It also needs a more appropriate source, such as a deeplink.
- File:UFA caucus.jpg needs a more appropriate source, as per above.
- File:Richard Reid jubilee.jpg - same as the one above.
- File:Richard Gavin Reid and cabinet.jpg's source does not lead anywhere.
- File:C H Douglas.jpg's source does not lead anywhere.
- NW (Talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect on the first point: photographs taken in Canada prior to January 1, 1949 are in the public domain irrespective of their author or publication status. Those taken before January 1, 1946 are also public domain in the United States, by virtue of being in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996. I'll sort the sources, though the first three are scanned from offline sources (I'll identify that source on the description page, I just want to warn you that there won't be a link). Steve Smith (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scanned from offline sources is fine, but if it is from a book, page numbers do have to be given and it has to be formatted appropriately. In addition, File:Richard Reid.jpg has no date, so there is no way for someone to know that it indeed fits PD-Canada. NW (Talk) 02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just addressed those issues on the Commons now. I couldn't figure out how to get deep links to the Glenbow images, because I'm a Luddite, so I linked to the search page and included the archival number on the page. If you can figure out how to link straight to the images, I'd be much obliged. File:Richard Reid.jpg does have a date in the book, which I've put on the description page; I was being sloppy while uploading it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look good now. NW (Talk) 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just addressed those issues on the Commons now. I couldn't figure out how to get deep links to the Glenbow images, because I'm a Luddite, so I linked to the search page and included the archival number on the page. If you can figure out how to link straight to the images, I'd be much obliged. File:Richard Reid.jpg does have a date in the book, which I've put on the description page; I was being sloppy while uploading it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scanned from offline sources is fine, but if it is from a book, page numbers do have to be given and it has to be formatted appropriately. In addition, File:Richard Reid.jpg has no date, so there is no way for someone to know that it indeed fits PD-Canada. NW (Talk) 02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect on the first point: photographs taken in Canada prior to January 1, 1949 are in the public domain irrespective of their author or publication status. Those taken before January 1, 1946 are also public domain in the United States, by virtue of being in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996. I'll sort the sources, though the first three are scanned from offline sources (I'll identify that source on the description page, I just want to warn you that there won't be a link). Steve Smith (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my comments at Peer Review
- although the first line of the second paragraph under "Premier" might be reworded slightly.Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I've taken a stab at such a reword; see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but is there another phrasing to substitute for "messy divorce"? Complicated, public, disputed, etc?
- That's fine (assuming the source supports it). Full support. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonderful. Thank you again for all of your help on this. Steve Smith (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine (assuming the source supports it). Full support. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but is there another phrasing to substitute for "messy divorce"? Complicated, public, disputed, etc?
- I've taken a stab at such a reword; see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - One of the best written pieces i have reviewed. Very high standard of prose, and good research.
My only query is: the article twice refers to the "Great Depression", then three times refers to "the depression" (lower case). Is there a case for revision here for consistency? The one place where the lower case language jars is in the final para: "like many governments across Canada, his was defeated by the depression". This appears to be a very clear reference to the Great Depression rather than to depressed economic conditions in general. I will leave it to the article's main editor to judge. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)OK, I worked through them myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. I'm terrible at this sort of stylistic nitpick, so I'll just leave it as is with an invitation to any editor confident in his/her mastery of the MOS to adjust it (or tell me how to do so). Steve Smith (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I couldn't find anything to change. This is a very well-written article that flows well. Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words. Steve Smith (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as the other person to offer a peer review. Another fine article on someone that everyone outside of Alberta, and most people inside would just go "who?" Resolute Lest We Forget 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.