Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John A. Macdonald/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 01:20, 16 April 2011 [1].

---

John A. Macdonald

John A. Macdonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/John A. Macdonald/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. John A. Macdonald. First Prime Minister of Canada and PM for almost nineteen years. Yet a very flawed character; he was notorious for his drinking spells (though if I knew what brand of whisky he drank, I'd send some to Stephen Harper) and very much joined in the bribery of the day, falling for five years from office over the Pacific Scandal. I've been working on this article, on and off, for six months and it's had a peer review. Enjoy. I am traveling so responses may be slow. Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• "Gwyn, p. 8. Although 10 January is the official date recorded in the General Register Office in Edinburgh, 11 January is the day Macdonald and those who commemorate him have celebrated his birthday. Gwyn, p. 8" - why two Gwyn?
• Dead link
• Missing bibliographic information for Smith, Pope (in Further reading, but you cite it?)

• Pope 1894 is now in Bibliography, but you're citing Pope 1921. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include a space between p./pp. and the number
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links
• Be consistent in how two authors, editions, volumes etc are notated
• Ref 139: formatting

• Formatting on ref 111, 141 is now all italicized

• In general citation formatting should be more consistent
• Publishers, locations, ISBNs for Bliss and Bowering?
• Granatstein: formatting
• Gwyn: location, ISBN?
• Collins: publisher?
• More of a personal preference, but I think the External links section could stand to be culled. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Why is Parks Canada italicized when the Canadian Register of Historic Places isn't?
• Macmillan of Canada or The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited?
• It's not required to include retrieval dates for weblinks to print-based sources, but if you're going to you must do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Those things are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Can the animation be slightly bigger?
• I don't think the signature is ineligible for copyright - that licensing tag may need to be changed. While COM:SIG doesn't explicitly mention Canada, it does say that common-law countries impose a low threshold for copyright. Do you have any insight on this point?
• File:Isabella_Clark_Macdonald.jpg is tagged as lacking a description and author information, and could we add the LAC number?
• File:Macdonald_lying_in_state.jpg - why does this have two identical licensing tags? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on these probably later today. Somebody added a lot of books some time ago and I didn't have the heart to cull them. I guess I'll have to now. Regarding the signature, I will look at it and possibly consult with Connormah who was kind enough to upload it, and check how I did it in my other Canadian bios, Diefenbaker and Howe. The reason there are two Gwyn, p. 8 is that I am emphasising that the information in the note is cited, and saying where it is cited to. If I hadn't put the second Gwyn p. 8 in there, I think a reviewer might have raised a question. Thanks for the work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I have caught everything except as noted either previously or here. I'm not certain what inconsistency you see with footnote 138, please advise. No doubt I am staring right at it. I did cut back considerably on further reading and external links. I have added an additional tag to the John A. signature, and have asked Connormah, who uploaded it, to weigh in. Keep in mind that it is undoubtedly PD, we're just discussing how we get there from here. No doubt I screwed up one or two attempts at being consistent, or overlooked something, apologies in advance for same. Many thanks for the good work you've done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Macdonald's signature is undoubtedly PD-Old or PD-US-1923 (is that it?), as he died in 1891. I'll look. Connormah (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

CrowzRSA

• There is inconsistency between the use of periods at the end of citations.
• Why is "Gwyn, p. 8" repeated in reference 1, and is Although 10 January is the official date recorded in the General Register Office in Edinburgh, 11 January is the day Macdonald and those who commemorate him have celebrated his birthday a quote? Because if it is, it should be in quotation marks.
• There is inconsistency between citations including years (i.e.: Creighton 1952, p. 19. and Pope, p. 6.)
• CrowzRSA 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See the response to me above about your first Gwyn question, and years are included for authors who've written more than one source on the reference list (so years are needed for disambiguation). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a quote. It is an explanatory note, which as it coincides with a citation, I felt better to include with the citation. I'll look at the periods issue, but probably won't get to it tonight. No problem straightening it out, just need to do a run through it and then check with eyes close to the screen! Glad to get all these comments so quick.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Every ref, to the limits of my aging eyes, now ends with a period. I think I'm caught up to date, unless there is still some question about the signature or ref 138, if so, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematic ref is 140 as of this revision, and it still has a formatting issue. Also, take a look at that block of web citations in general - half of them have a comma after the title, half a period. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fixed now. The only remaining comma is in 139, but I don't know what to do about that one as it is the product of a template. I would prefer not to change all other web- based refs to commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I revised the template used for 139 - it probably should have been a period in the template anyway. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Then I think I'm up to date on this one. I think the reviewers for their hard work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have so far only read part of this absorbing article and will complete it over the next day or two. Meanwhile I have some (mainly) prose issues from the early sections:-

• "...and quickly became prominent in Kingston, enabling him to seek..." The "ing" form of the verb is wrong here. Either "which enabled him to seek" or "...Kingston; this enabled him..." etc
• "John Macdonald's mother, Mary, became a lifelong influence on her son John" Not necessary to repeat the name, since the younger son had died.
• "at age ten, his family scraped together the money" Needs rephrasing - at present it reads as though the family was age ten.
• I'm sorry to add to your grief on this issue, but "they apprenticed, or articled to established lawyers."—I think that in its verb form, "apprentice" is transitive, so this needs to be "were apprenticed..." and all would be well.
• "Later that year, he was sent to manage..." It is not clear, here, that "he" is Macdonald.
• "It was not until 1836 that Macdonald returned to Toronto..." Unnecessarily verbose; why not "In 1836 Macdonald returned..."?
• "Worst of all..." Whose opinion here?
• "The visit stretched for nearly a year before the Macdonalds married on 1 September 1843". It's not clear from this who married whom.
• "by a vote of 156 to 43 for a Colonel Jackson" reads oddly. It sounds superficially as though Jackson might have won. I'd clarify to something like: "with 156 votes against 43 for his opponent, a Colonel Jackson"
• "In September, the government resigned, and a coalition government under Sir Allan McNab took power." We should be told who were the parties to this coalition (I see this is specified later in the paragraph, but perhaps a slight prose rearrangement could clarify).

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I will work on these tomorrow sometime, and await your further comments with interest. All of your concerns are quite valid, and I will implement them. Yes, articling has given me some grief over the years ... Ironically, my home state has that as an option, though we call it "reading law". Few states do anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And here are the rest:-

• To say a scheme was "enacted" suggests it was passed into law. I think you mean "adopted".
• "Canada went through a period of great prosperity". The "went through" phrasing is normally used for times of travail, so I'd prefer to see "Canada enjoyed a period..." etc
• I thought Tache had retired in 1857, yet (1863): "John A. Macdonald returned to office with Taché as titular premier".

He had. He unretired.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "a conveniently elastic phrase". Nicely put, but is this POV?

I don't think so. It allowed both major parties to claim that their concerns were being put first.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My query wasn't on the accuracy of the description but on its origin. Did a source describe the phrase as "conveniently elastic", or is it your own description. I am not pressing this, however. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Link or explain "Maritime colonies"
• Something needs attention here: "The British favoured an earlier date, and 22 May, however, it was announced that the Dominion of Canada would come into existence on 1 July."

Looks like this should read "and on 22 May" unless what you have is standard North American usage. On that matter, I noticed some British spellings, e.g. "favour". What is the chosen language form? Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No. you are right, it is a typo. Canada uses most British spellings but many US usages, I do the best I can and hope that Canadian editors will catch my mistakes.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a bit clumsy: "Immediately upon Confederation, he sent commissioners to London to negotiate the transfer of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory to Canada; the resultant agreement with the British and the Hudson's Bay Company transferred those lands to Canada". Shorten it to "Immediately upon Confederation, he sent commissioners to London who in due course successfully negotiated the transfer of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory to Canada".
• "unwilling to pay for a territory..."? You have not mentioned "payment" otherwise. Was this a cash transaction, and if so, how much did Macdonald pay?

$1.5 million, but the HBC got to retain one-twentieth of the best farmland and its best trading post. A good deal for both sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not mention the money? It is of interest. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Macdonald was appointed a British Commissioner..." Lower case in "commission" so why upper case here?
• "Cartier had fallen ill with Bright's Disease during the campaign, which may have been causing his judgment to lapse..." Needs rephrasing: "During the campaign Cartier had fallen ill with Bright's Disease, which may have been causing his judgment to lapse..."
• "prorogation" should have a piped link to Prorogation in Canada
• "the Conservatives were reduced to 70 seats..." Out of how many?
• "The easiest part of the National Policy to implement..." Has a POV fee. Easiest according to whom?
• The "Fifth and sixth terms, 1887–1891; death" section is over-imaged, with consequent squeezing of text. We don't need a fifth image of Macdonald, especially given his relatively unchanging appearance. The colour portrait would make a nicer lead image than the present one.

That's all I have. Happy to support when these are cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll switch back and forth to work on these, except as noted above. I'll add a bit on the deal with the HBC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: I have left a few queries, above, but they are not a basis for withholding support. This is a first-class article in every respect, and it filled in various gaps in my sketchy knowledge about how the Canadian nation was formed. A must for TFA next Canada Day. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had put in a mention the money, though I did it a little earlier in the article, and will take care of the other matters later on today. The "conveniently elastic" is a paraphrase from the source, I will go to a direct quotation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: Any comments I had were ably addressed during the peer review stage. The excellent suggestions here have made the article even better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've answered all of Nikimaria's concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I got down to Colonial leader, 1857–1864. - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm not seeing what these sentences have to do with each other: "... Macdonald agreed to advise George, who, like the other prisoners, had to conduct his own defence. George was convicted and hanged. According to Macdonald biographer Donald Swainson, "By 1838, Macdonald's position was secure. He was a public figure, a popular young man, and a senior lawyer." Because of the unrest, Parliament merged Upper and Lower Canada into the Province of Canada effective in 1841; Kingston became the initial capital of the new province; Upper Canada and Lower Canada became known as Canada West and Canada East."
• Same here: "Macdonald was never an orator, and especially disliked the bombastic addresses of the time. Instead, he found a niche in becoming an expert on election law and parliamentary procedure."
• Since we can't prove it, I think we'd need attribution if you want to keep the part about his marital difficulties "causing" his drinking, but feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The first involves things that happened to Macdonald in the early days of his career, and leads to the conclusion of one of his biographers that they raised him in the public eye, which foreshadows his political career. The second is necessary political background which the reader needs to understand the situation when Macdonald entered politics, as well as the terminology. This seems like routine exposition to me. I do not see the problem with Macdonald's oratory. He got ahead by being a parliamentary gnome, rather than giving five hour speeches (although he later gave those!) what's wrong with that? I have restored the causation on the drinking, but attributed it inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the attribution helps. I was hoping to spend more time on the prose here, but I'm not going to have time to get through it all. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your helpful comments and edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Back and working now, though not for long since the power's out here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good. I know how helpless a feeling that can be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• "nonentity": too harsh, I think.
• "to the fury of the Maritimers": Does "angering the Maritimers" work for you?
• "In December 1866, Macdonald not only led the London Conference, winning acclaim for his handling of the discussions, but wooed and won his second wife, Agnes Bernard." The "not only ... but" construction suggests that the acclaim he got was less impressive than getting married again ... was it?
• "Canada had no foreign relations": Would "Canada had no ministry for foreign relations" work for you?
• "a promise of better financial terms": I'd prefer either less or more ... what kind of financial terms?

Not specific, but who got to tax and fee what, especially imports, seems to have been the gist of it. If it matters, I'll dig through Creighton and get the lowdown on it.

• "North-West Territories": Did it start off with a hyphen?

Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Macdonald cabinet member": is there more than one cabinet?
• "all future Canadian elections would be conducted, for the most part, on one day": "all" contradicts "for the most part".

I'll strike the word "all". Exceptions seem to have been made into the 20th century, actually, as we later see Macdonald was elected for western ridings he had never seen. But they put a stop to the election being a traveling festival, with the voters well bribed and lubricated. More than usual, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Replying to this comment on my talk page: "Thanks for the copyediting. One thing, though. "Confederation", when we are talking about the Canadian Confederation, does not take a "the". So it would be "Manitoba entered Confederation in 1870." And of course, the Fathers of Confederation. I'm not Canadian myself, but this is how I've always seen it expressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)": If you'll lowercase it, then I won't take a position for or against. There's support for both uppercasing and lowercasing in a gsearch, but uppercasing would be jargony at best. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why, but I'm not going to argue about it. I'll look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Because nouns are only proper nouns if they're the exact name (or sometimes, one of the exact names) in use. AFAIK, the proper noun is "the Confederation", not "confederation" ... that is, you wouldn't write "Ontario joined Confederation". I don't have an objection to "entered confederation", although it would benefit from a link at first occurrence, since I don't see any hits to the phrase outside Canadian contexts. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed a couple more to the way you suggest, and I will wait to see what other commenters say, but I'll probably just leave it as is. I think I've gotten your other suggestions. Thanks for your continued work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• "attempted to use delay": legal or legislative?
• Support per FAC disclaimer. These and these (plus one comma) are my edits from yesterday and today. I'm still not on board with my first unstruck comment; the issue isn't that the logic doesn't make sense, the issue is that it's harder for the reader than it should be since it jumps around abruptly. Have another look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well Is it better now that I've divided the paragraph in question?

• It's better than it was. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As for Macdonald and delay, he did not care what kind of delay, he just wanted time to pass and memories to soften. It did not work immediately, but obviously did by 1878.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to look at it; I always continue to polish my articles even after FA. Thank you for your hard work under difficult circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure, I enjoy copyediting, and my current plan to keep on copyediting everything that comes to FAC tagged by a history-related wikiproject ... which will probably include all of your articles. So, if it feels like I'm getting up in your grill (as the kids say), please let me know right away. For my part, it's really helpful if editors look at the diffs of my work on their FAs, ask questions if they disagree, and do as much of their own copyediting as they can. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I try to copyedit as much as I can myself, but there are limits to what one can do on one's own work. I've got a few coin articles coming down the river next, don't know if you are up for those. Having a regular copyeditor does help writing as naturally the writer avoids pet peeves.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for it. If you want to ping me just before you submit it, and you prefer for me to do my work before FAC, I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to look at Peace dollar (a little cheap advertising on my part, I fear). I'll ping you before submission, which should be within a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Support. I did a little copy-editing, but feel free to revert if I've done something wrong.

• The map of Canada's growth is great, but it doesn't move for me. That could be a Firefox problem or something else on my end.
• There seems to be a great deal of passive voice, especially in the areas of the Pacific Scandal and vote-buying. This could be a problem of the sources -- perhaps they don't say, perhaps no one knows, who bribed whom directly. If possible, though, it would read better with active sentences. Not the passive voice is always wrong, but when discussing the foibles of the subject of the article, it does read a bit like making excuses for him.
• On Riel's hanging: I've always heard that pictures are hung, people are hanged. I don't know if that's real grammar or folk-grammar, but "hanged" certainly sounds more natural to my ears.
• "US" v. "U.S.": I think the former looks weird, but I guess if that's common in Canada I guess it should be that way. The MOS isn't really clear, and I don't know how Canadians usually write it.
• I think that's it, for now. Very nice article, and I look forward to supporting. --Coemgenus 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response I have the same problem with Safari, but I figure the worst case scenario, there's a map of how Canada was in 1867, so it is no-lose. They can click on it and do the animation. I've spiced up the active voice and made it a bit clearer what was going on. There was no actual smoking gun in terms of spelling out a quid pro quo, but if the charter wasn't going to be given to them, they wouldn't be giving in this way. I have changed it to "hanged". As for US vs. U.S. I am not myself Canadian, but several Canadians have looked at this, as well as other articles on Canada that I've done with US, and no one has said anything (C. D. Howe for example). I think that's everything, if you're happy with the Pacific Scandal stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe we have four supports. I think the sources and images have been looked at. If someone has further concerns with the article, I will gladly look at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.