Talk:Danny Williams (Canadian politician)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• Are you sure he's retired? I'm just double-checking since it's hard to trust politicians on stuff like that, but since there's no information post-resignation that's probably the case.

 Done Changed

• "The Williams family have been Progressive Conservatives since the province's confederation with Canada, in his youth" should be a semicolon

 Done.Moxy (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• So he earned three undergraduate degrees? Just double checking since to me that sounds a bit strange.

Don't understand this exactly.

It says he received undergraduate degrees from memorial university, oxford, and dalhousie, just making sure that's right.

That is correct!

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)::

• "Then eight months later the" Saying 'Eight months later, the' sounds better.

 Done,Moxy (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Williams practised law from 1972," until when? have it structured like that without an endpoint is confusing; then again if that's how it's written outside the U.S. then nevermind.

Williams has stated that he may practise law again

still on the bar paying dues - thus can practice at will..Reworded to -->Williams has been practising law since 1972.Moxy (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "In 2000 after years of speculation" commas after 2000 and speculation, but more importantly, this seems to come out of nowhere. are there any news sources you can find to note earlier speculation and why he declined original nominations?

There's the interview that I would assume is okay

could you show us the link? sorry see it below .Moxy (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "In September 2001, Liberal Member of the House of Assembly (MHA)," second comma not needed

 Done

• I'm not sure of the necessity of the appearances section. I would merge the important ones into the premier section and remove the others along with the section.

I had thought the same thing yesterday

• Ref #45 (N.L. hikes offshore revenue) is a deadlink.

 Done.Moxy (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• A couple references (Williams attacks 'predatory' Quebec over hydro, 38th PARLIAMENT 1st SESSION, "This page is available to GlobePlus subscribers" and "May 2010 Poll") needs publishers or access dates

 Done,Moxy (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not read through the premier section just yet, but I don't like how the controversies are separated. To me, the while timeline should be able to flow together without issue. That will need to be reworked.

I'll put the article on hold despite my review not yet being complete, and once all the above issues are addressed I'll read through the premier section of the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I will fix these issues tomorrow, I may have some questions and clearification. Is there any reason why this wouldn't be a reliable source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYBzTnNEjKI Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'm normally against youtube as a source, but since I asked for a "straight from the horse's mouth" type source and the link is exactly that, it should be okay. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's a CBC interview as well. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the remaining issues I found:

• "In the general election Williams led his party to victory becoming the province's ninth Premier, this win marked only the third change of government in the 54 years since the province joined Canada" should be period after Premier, or maybe a semicolon.

 Done

• "While public sectors workers were preparing to go on strike at midnight the Williams government was calling for the elimination of 4,000 public sector jobs." sounds a bit odd as worded. Comma after midnight might help, rewording could be beneficial as well; namely though, have this sentence and the next one flow a bit easier.

I believe I made it better. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Did anything of note happen between 2005 and 2007? The jump in the first term section threw me off. I see something in the controversy section which should be moved up.

I think I had this done befor but didn't want to be repetative. Should I find something else or try and add the information from the controversies section up? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Try to limit sentences that start with "on (date), ...". When it's used in three straight paragraphs it feels repetitive; mix it up.

• "The general election was called soon after Williams announced the popular Hebron Oil Field deal," popular not needed, since we can tell by the election results. Also, is oil field meant to be capitalized? It's not elsewhere in the article.

 Done

• "The province expects to gain at least $20 billion in royalties and up to 3,500 jobs from the project." anything updated on that?

Not really, some work has started but the oil field won't go into production for another 6 years.Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Have added "Construction is scheduled to start in 2012, with oil extraction by 2017." so that until 2012 no need for updates unless its starts early or gets cancelled or delayed.Moxy (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• The second term doesn't seem to have much info, but again, that's because a lot of it is in the controversy section.

How should I go about this? Should I have more detailed early on and then less information in the controversies section? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "This significantly raised Williams' popularity in the province, though the deal was criticized by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty." citation needed

 Done

• "Williams himself later said "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics" in defending his choice. " quotes need to be cited

 Done

• "Williams said "Québec's self interest is harming the provinces, the nation and our country's international reputation", and that, "Québec gets its own way because it has achieved the political trifecta. Their provincial special interests are protected by their influential Ministers in the Federal Government, the Provincial Government of Québec and the Bloc - a party that has a significant role in the balance of power which prioritizes issues only of concern to Québec."" quotes need cites

 Done

• The public opinion section feels recentist, with little writing or cites to start and nearly all the opinion notes coming in the last year or two of his term.

• "Williams popularity is said to be unmatched" Williams' popularity

 Done

• You talk about how controversial he is, yet at the same time the public opinion section sounds like a glowing review of him. It's actually a bit confusing.

As stated in the opening he's controversial outside the province, I will try and make it clear here. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a hard one - as he is very controversial (in the federal realm) - yet his opinion polls are through the roof in his home province and very well respected nationally.Moxy (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted above, I don't like the controversy in ts own separate section; it doesn't feel encyclopedic.

I'll try and figure that out, it was a big part of his premiership.Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok i put a copy of the section at User:Moxy/sandbox - y dont we go over the section <s>Striking out</s> what can go and is unsourced. The we will simply deleted the section in the article and add what we have left into the other sections by dates and appropriateness. What do you think?Moxy (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Article remains hold, though these problems are more serious than the ones already found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better now, so I'll give it a final read-through either today or tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the remaining issues I have:

• "The first year of Williams' government was marked with controversy, soon after being elected" period after controversy.
• "as well they delayed other projects most notably the opening of The Rooms, the provinces" comma after projects, province's, and the first part listed doesn't fit with the first part of the sentence.
• "The Williams government was calling for the elimation of 4,000 public sector jobs, two days later at midnight" period at jobs, and elimination is spelled wrong.
• "The deal was reached Friday night after 10 straight hours of negotiations, the two provinces will keep all their revenues " comma's not the right punctuation there but not sure how to fix this one.
• "According to Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale, "It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province."" cite needed
• ""I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people,"" cite needed
• "Though Williams' premiership was considered quite controversial his own" comma after controversial
• "his government were consistantly" consistently
• I'm actually going to request that this get a copyedit review at WP:GOCE. It seems like the more I read it the more issues I find, and would rather knock out all issues in one swoop.

Once all these issues are fixed I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So will I just nominate this for a copyedit review and they will fix the issues with the writing? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I went ahead and added it, so once the above is fixed we just need to wait the few days for it, then the review will be done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've done an extensive copyedit on the article. Prose apart, I feel the biggest potential issues are the significant section on opinion polls/popularity. I have significantly pruned the section, but remain concerned that we may still be placing undue emphasis on this, especially as the section is entirely cited to primary sources. Could this be in any way bolstered by independent sources? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. An opinion section helps, but four lengthy paragraphs might be overdoing it; either combining those final two into one or finding more independent sources would be helpful; I'll await the opinion of the writer. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I've went and read this article again a couple times, in particular the popularity section. While it does feel a bit like overkill to me, and third-party source additions would be beneficial, I don't think it's so lengthy as to warrant further holding. As such, after seeing the vast improvement over its original state, I am passing the article as a GA without prejudice, meaning if someone really thinks I'm stupid for passing it they're more than welcome to GAR it. I do think a bit more work should go into it, and if this was at FAC I would oppose as is, but it does pass all GA criteria. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)