Talk:Herbert Greenfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleHerbert Greenfield 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 10, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 10, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 29, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herbert Greenfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is a well-written and interesting article. I did a bit of copyediting and had just a few things left to mention:

  1. I believe that, in the way it is used in the article, premier should not be capitalized. I started to change this but became unsure of myself. This should be clarified and they should be consistent (which they are not, because I changed half of them). Sorry for the confusion here. I will look into it if I get a chance.
    There's certainly some room for stylistic discretion here. My own principle is that if the word is clearly short-form for a specific formal title - in this case, Premier of Alberta - I capitalize. If not - e.g. "the provincial premiers" - I don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    That seems well reasoned. I changed them back to the way you had them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. "immensely successful membership drive" - do you have any numbers (or a quotation) that you could include? "immensely successful" is a point of view statement.
    Here are the sources that characterize it as immensely successful: "membership+drive"+"herbert+greenfield"&source=bl&ots=FYBoAdW2RH&sig=opri5Hdaz5DTDzdq1ed-9WiZ27o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result,[1]. I think that since these scholarly sources describe it as such without bothering to describe it, and since none of the literature I've made use of suggests otherwise, we can assume that it is generally accepted as having been extremely successful. However, you've now seen the sources, and I'd be very amenable to any alternative suggestion on how to proceed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    How about this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. "sooner be President of the UFA than the USA" - direct quotations need a citation immediately after the quotation
    Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. "suggested that probably no Liberals" - the "probably" makes this sound awkward
    fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. "and soon to be Alberta's first female cabinet minister" - this seems awkward - perhaps "who was in line to become Alberta's first female cabinet minister"?
    How's this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. "turned in a poor performance" - left by itself, this is a point of view statement. Perhaps a quotation from the source?
    Here are the quotes from the sources: "The impact of the loss seemed to carry on into the opening session of the Assembly where Greenfield's preoccupied manner and lucklustre performance were attributed to his continuing grief." (Foster 74) "Even when he regrouped [from his wife's death], the old resolve seemed missing" (Jones 72). As with the other POV issue, this is a case where the academic consensus seems to be that he turned in a poor performance, and I quoted accordingly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    Does this work for you? I added the quotation to the reference so that readers can see that the description comes from an academic source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. "The result was labour militancy...and violence." The "..." isn't very encyclopedic.
    Removed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Was there a known cause of death, or was it just old age?
    No cause of death is specified in any of the resources I have access to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. The image in the "Provincial finances" section should have a caption.
    Added (it's a boring one, but unfortunately there's not much known about that picture, so I've included basically all the information I have in the caption. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. There are two online sources used in the references section, but they seem to be identical word-for-word. I'm not sure if this is a problem, but one might be unnecessary (perhaps it could go in an external links section)? I didn't read through both in detail, though, so there might be some differences.
    There actually are a few differences, some of which are material to the article (see, for example, my response to your second point, in which the Alberta encyclopedia includes the information but the legislature biography doesn't). The Alberta encylcopedia one is derived from the legislature one (with the latter's permission), but is also an RS in its own right and, while almost all of the cites to either could be switched over to the other, both are necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from this list, the article meets the six GA criteria. I will place the nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits that I would like you to look over (the one about the poor performance and the one about the successful membership drive). The information comes from reliable sources, but my concern is that it needs to be presented as such. Without letting readers know directly, they could (incorrectly) assume that the article was written by someone who is trying to push a point of view. If you are fine with the way these appear now, all of my concerns will have been addressed. If not, we can continue to discuss these until we find something that works better. Thanks for your quick responses and hard work, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of those work for me, especially the one about a poor performance (I should really make more extensive use of quotations in footnotes generally). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I rarely use quotations in footnotes either, but I occasionally remember that it's possible the best way to include information like this (especially when sourced from a book). It might be possible to do the same with the membership drive information as well.

With that said, the article now meets all of the Good Article criteria, so I am promoting it. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Birth Year[edit]

I have a book on Alberta premiers, and it's listing Greenfield's birth year as 1868. The source cited is

"United Kingdom. General Register Office, "Herbert Greenfield," Winchester, County of Southampton, 20 December 1868, no. 417, [Certified Copy of RBirth Registration], reproduced 12 August 12 2005; Ernest F. Chambers, ed, The Canadian Parliamentary Guide, 1925 ed. (Ottawa:Mortimer Co., 1925), p. 522.".

Which one would be correct? Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say that yours was correct, but does it agree on November 25? I note his legislature biography says November 26, 1868 [2]. What I'd say we should do is just list all dates given by reliable sources, each footnoted appropriately. Steve Smith (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Greenfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)