This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Reviewer:hamiltonstone (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC) This article appears stable, neutral, and generally well-written. It is generally excellent, if a little long in proportion to the significance of its subject, but it certainly ensures comprehensiveness. My quick check suggests all images are in order.
Background: It would help if Douglas' nationality is mentioned in the sentence where the man is first named.
Background: "While Douglas assiduously avoided making specific comment on Aberhart's proposals, he had submitted them to his Social Credit Secretariat for review; it found them to be "fallacious from start to finish"." which "he" and which "his"? Sentence is unclear.
Clarified, I think.
Almost. In the phrase "he had submitted them to his...", I cannot tell who "he" is and who "his" is. One seems to refer to Aberhard, the other to Douglas?? But really, I'm guessing. If we can just fix this, the article is good to go for GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Er, I think with Aberhart's name removed from the sentence, it's clear that all of the pronouns refer to Douglas, no?
I see your point, but even having recognised that, I still found it hard to read without thinking that Aberhart must be the subject of one of the pronouns. I tweaked it to try and eliminate that impulse :-) I'm happy with it now, if you are. hamiltonstone (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The dissent becomes overt: "Blue, again echoing Duggan, threatened on March 16 to vote against the government's interim supply bill which, under the conventions of the Westminster parliamentary system, would force the government's resignation." I am puzzled by this. Blue's threatened action on its own could not cause the government's resignation. Social Credit had a massive majority in the legislature. Even allowing for a number of dissenters crossing the floor, i would have thought Aberhart still had a majority. Under the Westminster convention, only the failure of the supply bill to pass would cause the government to fall. Can an editor clarify?
Clarified that only the actual defeat of the bill, and not merely Blue's opposition, would force the resignation of the government. The significance of mentioning this is i. it makes Blue's dissent all the more noteworthy, and ii. given that Blue was part of a group (of indeterminate size) of Social Crediters who opposed the government, his over opposition could have (and to an extent did) touched off a stampede.
The dissent becomes overt: "Surprised by this manoeuvre". Which manoeuvre?
Social Credit Board and commission: " Aberhart fired Chant, a known Douglasite". We are too far in the text from the only previous mention of Chant to remember who he is or from what capacity he would be fired. Suggest repeat his office here.
Clarified, though I didn't identify his portfolios again (there is no way of indicating that he was the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Industry that doesn't sound unwieldy - "Minister of Agriculture and Trade and Industry"?).
Social Credit Board and commission: "Whatever its membership, it was empowered to appoint a commission of between three and five experts..." Yet only two are later mentioned. Does this mean the commission was in breach of the Act?
Unclear. My assumption is that the commission was rounded out by a person or people who didn't much matter, and is accordingly not mentioned in any sources.
Aftermath: "majoritarily". Not in my dictionary!
I'm a believer that any adjective can be converted to an adverb with the addition of "ly". Nevertheless, in a concession to actual linguistic authorities, I've reworded.
That's it I think. I've made a number of copyedits which editors should check to ensure i retained the correct meanings. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
All copyedits look good; thank you. Steve Smith (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. If you can just look at the one outstanding issue above, this should all be done. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The question was raised in the FAC discussion of whether "backbench" is a term that could be assumed to be understood. The more I thought about this, the more i thought that this could be an issue with quite a few political terms, including two general used in any explanation of "backbench": namely "cabinet" and "caucus". One option might be to drop "backbench" from the lead altogether, so that it reads "It was a rebellion against Premier William Aberhart by some Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from his Social Credit League." "Backbench" can then be explained somewhere early in the body text. At the same time, one might need to do likewise with "caucus". We can only hope that "cabinet" does not need similar explanation. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As the one who raised the point in the FAC, I find Steve Smith's comment on this on the FAC page  persuasive; most readers are indeed likely to know the term. On the other hand, the explanation does matter for those who don't know it, and "backbench" as a term is fairly central to the narrative of this article, more so than "caucus" or even "cabinet". I think the current wording is good. Ucucha 06:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
How did this pass FA review when so many important figures, including cabinet members, are redlinks? All MLAs are ex officio notable, and should already have had articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
FAC reviews this article, not the ones linked from it. That those articles are red-linked does not impend the reader's understanding of this article. Ucucha 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just a smidgen disappointed. Heaven knows I'm no expert on Albertan politics, or SoCred history (I'm more a CCF man myself). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Blue-ing those is on my long-term to-do list, but I don't really enjoy writing stubs, so I want to make sure I have the time to do a proper job of it. I agree that they should all have articles, though. Steve Smith (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)