Wikipedia:Peer review/John A. Macdonald/archive1

John A. Macdonald

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it for FA and would like feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The improvements are tremendous. It reads so much better. I will review more carefully and offer any suggestions that come to mind. More immediately, it's not clear why you are removing the references to National Historic Sites associated with Macdonald. His gravesite, in particular, is the only one in Canada to be so designated. It merits more than a reference note. I acknowledge the reference might be in the wrong spot, but I defer to your judgment on that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Skeezix1000

Just a few comments (ignore any with which you disagree). Hope it helps.

Lead

• "Macdonald served almost nineteen years as Canadian Prime Minister, more than any man except William Lyon Mackenzie King." → Could "man" be replaced with "person" or something to that effect? Someone with less familiarity of Canadian history might conclude that a woman has served a longer period. (This is not a huge issue - maybe you think "man" reads better)
• "He articled to a local lawyer" → As an Ontario lawyer myself, one normally articles "with" a lawyer. Maybe this a historic way of saying this (and is used by the source), and perhaps usage is not standard across Canada.
• "Canada had obtained most of the territory she occupies today" → "it" is better than "she", but this is a style choice I suppose.

Early years, 1815–1830

• Kingston was not the capital of Upper Canada in 1820 (or ever, IRCC - wasn't it strictly the capital of the Province of Canada for a time?), although it may have been the most populated city at that time.

Legal prominence, 1837–1843

• "Macdonald was not called upon to fire a shot in anger" → Not sure the words "in anger" are necessary. Had the Kingston area been attacked, would he have helped defend it "in anger'?

Parliamentary advancement, 1843–1857

• Some of the photos near this heading are causing unnecessary extra spaces after the heading (in IE at least). You may want to slightly adjust the location of the images.
• "The coalition which came to power in 1854 became known as the Liberal-Conservatives (referred to, for short, as the Conservatives) and eventually became the Progressive Conservatives" → It seems odd to mention one iteration of that party which didn't exist until 1942, and doesn't exist today. I would reference the Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942) instead (or even today's Conservative Party, if the intent is to tie it to a current entity).

Colonial leader, 1857–1864

• The first sentence is a bit confusing - it starts talking about Isabella, but then jumps to Macdonald (as do the next few sentences). Rather than separating the information on Isabella with a few sentences on John's activities, would it not make sense to put all the information on Isabella at the end of the paragraph?

Confederation of Canada, 1864–1867

• "Macdonald had favoured the union coming into force on 15 July, fearing that the preparations would not be completed any earlier. On 22 May, however, it was announced that the Dominion of Canada would come into existence on 1 July." → Begs the question why the date was moved forward.

First term, 1867–1871

• "It soon became apparent that Mary was not normal." → This sentence can be deleted entirely - "normal" is in the eyes of the beholder. The article should simply set out Mary's issues.
• "The Canadian Parliament also ratified the terms, in what Macdonald cabinet member Alexander Morris described as the worst fight the Conservatives had had since Confederation." → It is unclear whether the Conservatives were fighting over the cost of the promise or over allowing BC to enter Confederation.
• "Macdonald remained in the House of Commons, having been elected for Marquette, Manitoba and Victoria, British Columbia, choosing to sit for the latter." → This is somewhat confusing. He stood for election in Kingston, refusing to run in Caldwell, but sat as MP for Victoria? You might want to explain that candidates could, and did, run in multiple ridings (if that is the case).

This odd practice survived into the Laurier years, as Laurier was elected as MP for both Quebec East and the District of Saskatchewan. I can't find anything definite about the practice, but I expect they hoped for the prestige and perhaps some dough from being the Prime Minister's constituency. These were generally by acclamation. I have one source that says the Victoria election happened after the Kingston loss, but I'm dubious of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Third and fourth terms, 1878–1887

• "Salable" is American English. "Saleable" is more common in Canadian English (and the term preferred in the Canadian Oxford).

Fifth and sixth terms, 1887–1891; death

• "During the campaign, Macdonald suffered another blow when Quebec Liberals were able to form a government (four months after the October 1886 Quebec election), forcing the Conservatives from power in Quebec City." - I had to read this three times to understand that it was refering to the the Liberals' provincial cousins, not the federal Liberal caucus.

Legacy and tributes

• This subject needs expanding. Although I do like the focus on his accomplishments being his most tangible monument, the physical monuments are important as well. I don't think the article should, for example, list all the high schools named after Macdonald (which would be the other extreme), but "Macdonald is the subject of a number of tributes in Canada" is way too vague. You could say that his name graces many schools and roads across the country, if we can find a source for that. Maybe this is where you mention that he is the subject of three NHSCs (it seems very odd that there is no mention of Bellevue, a museum maintained in his honour). While it is a good point that we have not named any provinces of cities after Macdonald, I am not sure what a "massive monument" is (I have a sense of what is meant by the term, but it's fairly subjective and ambiguous). While I agree that a statue is not the same as Mount Rushmore, the section makes it sound like there are few physical tributes to the man (in fact, there are statues on Parliament Hill, and in Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston and Montreal).

  Again, the article is looking great.

--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'm trying to make this about Macdonald as much as possible, and just touch on the tributes. Any ones that are notable can be added as see alsos. It's about narrative. I will implement your comments as I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will make that change on "articling". Between Macdonald and Diefenbaker, the term has caused me endless grief. And I guess I'll add back the stuff, if only to beef up the legacy section. The thing is, while people have said a lot about Macdonald, they usually just say the same things over and over. Good Confederation, bad Riel and scandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect usage differs by usage and time period, which is why the term causes such grief. As for tributes, I will leave it in your good hands. I've said my piece - you have my support for whatever decision you come to. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't implemented these yet because I am h oping for more comments. If no one else replies by the end of the weekend, I'll push forward and start thinking about when to do a FAC nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)