Talk:Canadian federal election, 1957

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Canadian federal election, 1957 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 8, 2010.

Nice Article[edit]

Wow this is a really nice article, I didn't realize Wikipedia had coverage like this. Great job. (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of all the editors who worked hard on this article, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Mjcoldwell.jpg[edit]

The image File:Mjcoldwell.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

International media coverage[edit]

I've started collecting sources at Talk:Canadian federal election, 1957/International media coverage.

Ottre 07:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do any of them have links? Not necessary but helpful. And I know I still have to add at least one more paper to "Dief will call another election".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I've read them. Many of them are very close, in content anyway if not in exact words, to similar articles available on Google news archive or in the NY times. What would you like to do with them?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Results map error[edit]

The map showing the results across Canada has one significant error. Significant, in that it would be easily visible even as a small image.

From 1905 until 1962, the majority of the Northwest Territories was not covered by a federal electoral district, and had no member of Parliament. The riding of Mackenzie River, created in 1952 (in effect as of 1953 election) by the division of the 1947 riding of Yukon-Mackenzie River, extended northward only to the edge of the mainland, and eastward only to the 102nd Meridian of longitude (at that time, the Mackenzie-Keewatin district boundary). The 1953, 1957 and 1958 elections used this small riding. The 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1972 and 1974 elections reflected the riding of Northwest Territories, covering the entire landmass that in 1999 was divided to create Nunavut. GBC (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but by total votes cast, Liberals won the Northwest Territories to the degree stated. Therefore the map is accurate although much of the NWT was not actually in a riding. The map is only intended to show the winner by province or territory, and the degree of the victory.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Another editor, without explaining how it applies, is of the opinion that WP:LEDE justifies an overlong introduction. The material after the first paragraph is simply background, and is not necessary to introduce the topic of the article. 17:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. According to WP:LEDE,

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should nevertheless not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

This article's lede (at least, before you reverted it) contains four paragraphs, within the guidelines. The first paragraph is what I call an executive summary of the article, it is not actually background as you correctly note. The second contains background information about the subject of the article, so does the third to some extent, but moving to more recent events. Since some time has passed since that election, and St. Laurent and Diefenbaker no longer as well remembered as they once were, I give a little more background both in lede and in the body, then I would for a more recent article. The article format is closely patterned after Canadian federal election, 1993 which was then a FA, but has since lost its status. All of this is reflected with sourced material in the body.
The fourth deals more with the result of the election. Were we in 1959, with Dief and St. Laurent (although by then retired from politics) familiar figures, I agree, the lede would probably be a bit long. In 2011, though, not so much.
I also remind you that this article passed FA, and any major changes, such as the reformatting you have attempted, should have consensus before being made. I am going to notify the PR and FA reviewers of this discussion on their talk pages in a neutral manner and ask them to weigh in. In the meantime, would you care to state, with reference to policy and MOS, why your way is better?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have notified the four people who made substantial comments to the FAC (the PR attracted no comments before it was closed) Three of them supported the article's promotion, one took no position.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LEAD an article this length should have a lead of 3-4 paragraphs that summarises the article. Moving the heading in the way that was done means that material in the "Background" section is duplicated, and material that is not background, such as the results, would be in an inappropriate section. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. With under 300 words the lead is neither overlong nor overdetailed, and it corresponds to the guidelines. The attenuated version does not. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The one-para lead was most unsatisfactory. I agree with the latest, more inclusive version. Tony (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to leave it as it is, but I am not all that persuaded by the reasoning. Despite references to the guidelines, some of the reasons set out in support are rather subjective, or rely on simple word/paragraph counts. The article is about the 1957 election. The fact that the Libs governed since 1935 is clearly antecedent to the inherent topic of the article, and is background to the topic at hand. This is inherently acknowledged by Wehwalt, who I note described each of the paragraphs I moved to after the heading as "background".
In fact, the three paragraphs at issue are repetitive regardless of which side of the header they're on. If anything, they could easily be merged into the paragraphs under the "Liberal domination", "Tory struggles", and "Run up" subheadings.
One final note: I fail to see how my initial edit was a "revert". Yes, I changed the organization of the article by moving the heading, but I didn't "revert" it back to some prior version. I put an explanation in the edit summary, and nothing more was needed at the time because, really, it was a rather inconsequential change. If anything, the only "revert" in question was the undoing of my good faith edit. Once the onus was thrust upon me (in an edit summary, not on a talk page), I took it to the talk page. Agent 86 (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
If you look at WP:FA and click on random articles you will see that almost all have three or four paragraph leads. Look at one of the John Brownlee articles for example, if you want to keep it in Canada. Or one of the other Social Credit articles from Alberta (I didn't write any of those, that is why I am suggesting that, whereas I have a small handful of other Canadian FA's, although I am not Canadian). I'm just trying to make you understand that the purpose of a lede is, among other things, to give the reader a quick and dirty summary of the events of the article, in order. At present, in under three hundred words, we establish the apparently eternal Liberal domination, the new Tory leader, who proved interesting to Canadians, a screwed up and overconfident Liberal campaign, and finishing with the PC victory. Most readers do not read the whole article, they are there for quick information before returning to their busy lives. I had a complaint on one of my other articles, complaining he had wasted time trying to find a physical characteristic of the subject. We added it to the infobox. Moving it into the background section makes it less accessible to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have already acknowledged that you won't be persuaded, so it's unnecessary to continue with a faulty syllogism. I accept your anology to other articles (which doesn't necessarily make this one correct), but it does not address the repetitiveness of the three paragraphs after the opening and the ones that currently follow the heading. Moreover, I am unable to accept your conclusion that the lede must be a precis of the article, unless you can back up your unsupported assertion that most people don't read the whole article. Even if I believed that to be true, that would not go to the objective structure of the article. Agent 86 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, we'll agree to disagree then.