Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dylnuge (talk · contribs) 00:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Szmenderowiecki, I'm picking this and Maurice Duplessis up as part of the GAN backlog drive. I left a general opening comment there, but please do let me know if you'd prefer to have separate reviewers look at these articles! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial remarks: Unsurprisingly, similar overall initial remarks to the ones I made at Maurice Duplessis. Stable, illustrated, no obvious issues with any GA criteria, referencing looks excellent (I noticed source footnotes and list of books are flipped between these two articles; I assume that's due to maintaining existing CITEVAR styles, and of course it's not an issue in either article). Earwig has a few more flags, but these are all short phrases and official titles, not copyvio. Lead overall is appropriately concise and comprehensive—I'd break the opening sentence into two sentences, but otherwise everything looks good here. No concerns with respect to broadness, focus, prose quality. I'll start on Maurice Duplessis, but may be simultaneously leaving comments on both of these pages. Let me know if you'd prefer me to tackle this in a different way! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

General Comments

• Notes similar to the ones I left on Talk:Maurice Duplessis/GA2:
  • Still the occasional mixing in of Le Chef to refer to Duplessis, though I think it's less of a problem here than in Maurice Duplessis
  • I also see less inappropriate wikilinking here, though there's still some. In particular, the links that are just dates but go to elections are generally easter-egg like. Something like he lost a snap election in [[1939 Quebec general election|1939]] should be he lost a snap election in the [[1939 Quebec general election]] or at least he lost a [[1939 Quebec general election|snap election in 1939]]. A reader should be able to guess where the link is going to take them without hovering over it or clicking on it.
  • Couple tense issues; I fixed the ones I found but worth keeping an eye out for any I missed.
• Is the provincial autonomy a common turn-of-phrase? It reads to me as grammatically incorrect (i.e. I think it should just be "provincial autonomy"), but having seen it in both articles I'm wondering if I'm just missing something about how it's being used.

Oh, I think it should be without the article.

• The collapsed tables look a bit strange formatting-wise; specifically, they appear scrunched up in the corner of my screen until I uncollapse them (see File:Duplessis-table-collapsed.png and File:Duplessis-table-uncollapsed.png for screenshots of what I mean by this).

I get what you mean, but I'm not sure I can do anything with it. It should be something like p align="center", but because code on Wikipedia isn't exactly HTML, I don't know how I can implement this.

• This was in addition to the position of Premier of Quebec and the Attorney General of Quebec, to which position he appointed himself for the whole duration of his terms. — It's not entirely clear to me from the article if appointing himself to be Attorney General was an unusual move, but I'm assuming it was, in which case I feel like there should be more on this. Presumably there was reaction: criticism, support, etc. Did this require politicking or was this an unchecked authority the Premier had? Did this prompt a change in future governments (e.g. was there a later law that prevented this from recurring)?

As I explained in the previous review (Maurice Duplessis), the leader of the party establishes a cabinet they want, and the LtGov by convention accepts the cabinet. By the same convention, the LtGov can't object. Nobody cared to write about it as far as the sourcing went, so this basically says he assumed the roles of Premier and Attorney General. That's it.

• The law was far from ideal: trade unions were unwilling to embrace the scheme (they preferred collective bargaining instead, which led to agreements that were not regulated by the Fair Wage Act); the law excluded railway, agriculture and home servants; companies repeatedly requested exemptions from the regulations, and the government's application of the law was patchy or even used to suppress wage increases — This sentence feels like it's covering a lot at once, especially with the footnote; I think it could be split into several sentences, and I'd replace the parenthetical. Also why did collective bargaining lead to agreements not regulated by the Fair Wage act?

I split it in two. As for the last question - apparently that was the law. I imagine that the government thought that since trade unions were powerful enough to force the employers to change their behaviour (as opposed to a single worker), they could fight alone for the salaries and conditions deemed "reasonable". No source I consulted ever explained this.

• almost a fifth of workers were not paid what they were due — this feels worth expanding on; what was causing the workers not to get paid? What distinguished the workers who were getting paid and not getting paid? Was it intentional on the part of the Duplessis government?

The source doesn't say it explicitly what that "rapport du service de vérification" said about the numbers, or where we can access it. Obviously, being a government paper, we should consider it reliable for historical facts. There may be more answers in Histoire des normes du travail au Québec de 1885 à 2005 : de l'Acte des manufacturiers à la Loi sur les normes du travail, but I can't access it. So I assume the reasons were usual: lack of enforcement and lack of awareness of workers' rights.

• The article should mention when the Padlock Law enacted (at least the year, probably the month)

Done

• In the third paragraph of "Societal issues", was the anti-Semitism of the era provoked by or acknowledged by Duplessis in any way? How did he respond to the creation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, if at all?

The CCLU was a relatively minor organization that quickly faded into obscurity. There is no relation between it and the ACLU, which is huge. As for anti-Semitism, the only really relevant instance that could be tied to Duplessis was in the 1944 campaign and which I already describe. The scope of this article was to describe Duplessis's action (or inaction) in areas over which he had control. It was not to describe the general period from 1936 to 1959 and the moods of the society.

But speaking of the anti-Semitism, Duplessis isn't really remembered as an anti-Semite (I mean, Union Nationale admitted Jews, see Turchinsky, p. 315), but he hated communists. He also denied being one. It does not appear anywhere that he led something like an informal campaign against the Jews. But he most definitely slandered Jews when they were accused of being Communists or if they were Liberals, but there is no evidence that he hated Jews for being Jews.

• Citations are missing from the end of the third and fourth paragraphs of "Societal issues".

In para 3, Switzman v Elbling explains everything. In para 4, it's the 1939 election link.

• The hatnote at the bottom of the first government section seems a little awkward. I get what you're going for here—the opposition is technically out of scope for an article on Duplessis's Primership—but it might be better to have a short section summarizing key points with a "main article" hatnote at the top of it. If you think none of that detail belongs, I would still move the hatnote to the top of the Political atmosphere section.

I don't think anything belongs here, and that's not only because it is outside of the article's scope but because there is little to summarise.

• Citations are missing from the end of the first two paragraphs of "Political atmosphere"

The Saint-Aubin book covers most of what I wrote, so I changed this to a statement that he ruled until his death. The second sentence introduces content in the following paragraphs and as such does not need to be cited. The text in the later paragraphs tells the whole story.

• When did Duplessis get the nickname "Le Chef"?

No idea, I haven't found it anywhere. We know why he got it but not when. Conrad Black is silent. I don't think Rumilly mentions it, either. There appears to be no research whatsoever into this question.

Organization thoughts

Pulling this out from bullets because it's a more complex issue. I find the organization of the article a little muddled here. The article is effectively divided chronologically into "First government" and "Second government". The "Second government" portion in particular feels like it's covering stuff out of that chronology. For instance, "Style of governance" section begins by talking about Duplessis in 1936, and little in this section strikes me as specific to his second government. I'm also not totally sure it slots into "Political atmosphere", other than it being clearly not under "Economy"—that division feels a little unnatural to me.

There are cases where I think the split between the two governments hurts the ability of the article to present a clear narrative. For example, the Padlock law was in effect during the majority of both of Duplessis's governments. It is primarily covered in the first government section, so the article gives the impression that it was primarily a factor during his first government and not as prominent during the second. The "Media and censorship" section under the second government mentions it as background from the first government. The "Labor relations" section under second government mentions that it was increasingly used against trade activists and no longer being used against communists, but it's not clear when Duplessis's anti-communist persecution ended. Meanwhile it's under the first government that the Switzman v Elbling ruling striking down the law is mentioned, despite the fact that ruling came in 1957, towards the end of Duplessis's second government. There's no mention in the article of how that ruling affected Duplessis's government (was it the nominal end of a law that was no longer in active use? was it an abrupt end to one of Duplessis's primary tools of power?), but it feels inappropriate to suggest the first government section that primarily covers the law be expanded to include that. Ultimately I found myself wanting a section of the article that gave a clear timeline of the law, and instead was searching back and forth for mentions to connect the timeline. Reorganizing this might also make it clearer that there's missing information.

Chronological ordering isn't necessarily wrong here, but it's not the only option for organization. Looking at articles like Premiership of Gordon Brown (the only GA I found of this style) or Presidency of Ronald Reagan (not a GA, but decently organized), they're organized around policy themes, using chronological ordering internally within sections. I realize the discontinuity of Duplessis's governments makes that kind of organization more difficult, but I wonder if a section explicitly presenting the timeline followed by sections presenting the themes and policies of both governments would be a better way to organize this. You're far more of an expert on this than me, so I'll leave how (and whether) to incorporate this suggestion to you.

The real problem here is that his premiership was interrupted by five years of Adélard Godbout. My idea of organisation came from Premiership of John Edward Brownlee, a FA article about a premier in Alberta. It is also more thematic rather than chronological, and this is a much better organisation style than the French version I was translating from. (It is chronological, not policy-sorted, but reading the biography section of that good article is a total mess).

Now my criterion for covering more in the first part than the second one was this: if the policy that would frame the response to some issues his govt had was passed in the first term, I would cover it there. That's why the Padlock Law is mentioned in the first premiership part but not the second. Because the Padlock Law ostensibly was an anti-Communist law, I also mention all relevant info about Duplessis's persecution of Communists there, whether it was the first term or the second term, because the framework for persecution was set in the first law.

Now I wasn't really able to see if Duplessis-as-Attorney-General engaged in persecution of Communists with the same vigour as he did pre-WWII, but as far as I could see, he did. Duplessis was very strongly against Communism, and he believed that Communists infiltrated trade unions (which he didn't like anyway), so he cracked down on them as emanations of Communism. (Black, p. 300) Also, a padlock was in fact installed on the door of Switzman's rented apartment in 1949, so it's not like it was a dead letter.

In my view, it is important to split the first premiership from the second from the economic perspective, because 1936-1939 and 1944-1959 were totally different - one was a crisis period, the other a period of prosperity, and economic policies were different. So I don't think it's entirely right to pile them one on another.

I am, however, open to any proposal to rearrange the whole article. I just want your proposal based on the content in the article. IMHO a timeline at the end would be somewhat weird, but I am also open to this proposal as well

Ultimately, the organization is up to you, and I'm not going to hold off listing based on these concerns; the article as-organized works. My concern here isn't that a chronological presentation is inappropriate per se, but that a lot of the seemingly chronological sections jump around in time a bit. I found myself jumping around between sections several times to try and piece together a timeline, especially in the first premiership. That got me thinking about ways it could be reordered, but I want to be clear that I don't think this is an intractable problem and I'll defer to your judgement on what structure works best.

I'm also not proposing things be entirely rewritten, though I might not have been clear on that. The article has a lot of content that I feel currently would work better broken out of the "first/second premiership" chronology; for instance, the "Style of governance" section under the second premiership, which talks about Duplessis's political views as early as 1936, feels like the kind of information that I think would benefit from being presented up front, independent of the chronological progression of Duplessis's government.

Status

 On hold Like with the other GA I'm placing this on hold for the moment; I'd like to at least discuss the organization concerns I have before proceeding as I do think it creates a bit of a focus/broadness issue as described above. I realize what I'm proposing here is a more significant overhaul than the standard prose fixes, so please feel free to push back on it if you don't agree, and note that I'm entirely willing to help out here, work through this, and keep the review open while any improvement work is in progress. Thanks again for all your work on both of these articles—I didn't know anything about Duplessis coming in and I found them really interesting. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Replied above; sorry for the slow turnaround there (got delayed by US holiday weekend and then a couple particularly busy days). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the best way to organise this Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Dylnuge Well, I was shuffling content in thematical blocks but it simply wouldn't make sense for me. The problem is that the first and the second terms were quite different. The first term happened during a severe crisis (the Great Depression), the other during times of great prosperity. In the first term, there was some indication that Quebec would adopt at least some of the relatively progressive policies under the influence of ALN members, but there was no possibility of that in the second. The authoritarian inclinations were not much visible in the first term (remember, in 1937 Liberals and UN both agreed that communists must be punished for being communists), but it's his second rule that is much more (in)famous, depending on your perspective. Their campaign juggernaut did not exist in 1936, or 1939, or even in 1944 for that matter. I have no sources describing Duplessis's educational, healthcare and cultural expenditures for the first term.

There's much more coverage of 1944-1959 than of 1936-1939, probably because Grande Noirceur is tied to Duplessis but people can't really say what was it that he did wrong in the pre-war period, expect for maybe the Padlock Law, but they can definitely point to what he did wrong after the war. After all, he's been in power for 15 years. I get your point with the chronological inconsistencies, but I simply don't know how to do that otherwise without maintaining the distinction between the two periods. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: per Special:Diff/1178858941, this review has been closed as abandoned. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Szmenderowiecki, I've been eyeing this up for a while. I'll ping you in a few days when I have a completed review. I'll be doing it in chunks so you'll see me adding some stuff as I go. Also - I'll be doing some copyediting as I go, so please check my edit logs and revert anything you disagree with. grungaloo (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Szmenderowiecki, I've finished my review. Honestly I think there are some larger issues with this article that need to be overcome, but given how long it's been waiting for a review it's only fair to give you a while to fix these. I'll put this review on hold, but please ping me if you have any questions. grungaloo (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments below, some issues with clarity. Prose is reasonably well written. Sections/layout are good

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See comments below, some lines need cites, especially those with quotations. Otherwise, spot checked about ~10% of refs, particularly Saint-Aubins and Dumas and found no issues. Only copyvio detected relates mostly to quotes or proper nouns. WP:SYN issues addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Needs more detail about the end of his premiership. Linked back to main article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Honestly this is one that could easily fail NPOV, Duplessis welcomes controversy, but this is handled well. It sticks to the sources, and I feel presents Duplessis fairly based on what others have written about him

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No signs of edit warring

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensing of images is good, but there's too much media that doesn't serve any purpose. I've made comments below detailing further. Media pared back a bit.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments

• There's quite a bit of media here, pictures, videos, and audio files, and I'd argue not all of it belongs. For instance in the 8 pictures in the first section, do we need a picture of the Chateau Frontenac, or two pictures of his cabinet? Do these add much to the understanding of the article? In other instances, like the video about the flag of Quebec, is that relevant to Duplessis? It would makes sense on the flag article, but maybe not here since this is about Duplessis himself. I'd suggest taking a look through and cutting out what might not be benefiting the article.

OK, so I will admit this article is (mostly) a translation from French, and over at fr.wiki the standards for GA/FAs are ridiculous (I am translating Le Touquet and even though it's an FA, it's a total mess with a clear overload of media). I guess we can stay with one image of his cabinet and remove Chateau Frontenac. The flag video is relevant to Duplessis given he was the one who signed the Order-in-Council, so I think this one should stay. Any other suggestions are welcome

• Translations are done inconsistently, both in quotes and in names of documents. I'd go through and make sure that you use one style consistently.

OK, I'd like to see the styles I used and maybe we will find one to use throughout.

• Quebeckers and Quebecers are both used throughout the article, I'd suggest picking one and making the use consistent throughout.

I tried to use Quebeckers so as not to repeat "French Canadians" or when it referred to anyone living in Quebec and not the Québécois, will fix it.

 Done

• Some things in the lead aren't mentioned in the body, like the Grande Noirceur.

The point is that this article is almost exclusively based on fact and not the clash of opinions I assessed in the historiography section of the main article, but it also cannot be fully detached from the main article. I deliberately separated the two because otherwise the article would have been too big. So the lead kinda had to refer to the lead of the main article. Besides the stereotype that most Quebeckers have is Duplessis=Grande Noirceur, so that was another reason to do just that.

• This article ends abruptly - I'd expect a short description of his passing in office and briefly what the aftermath of that was.

That's in the main article. I can make the same insert like "for his death and debate over his legacy, see main article" if that's OK with you. No need to repeat ourselves, that's outside the scope of the article.

I addressed it in the way I proposed.

First Government

• however, Philippe Hamel, one of the main ideologues of the Action libérale nationale,- Use ALN since it's used earlier. Goes for any subsequent mentions too.

Fixed

• Camillien Houde, who had a feud with Duplessis, unexpectedly decided to resign from his mayorship of Montreal, citing bad relations with the new Premier, despite a looming election three months later (Houde lost it to a candidate favoured by the Union Nationale) - Houde lost what, the mayorship? But if he resigned he didn't really lose it. Maybe reword that it was won by the other candidate instead.

He lost the mayoral election, I hope this is clearer now

• Duplessis quickly became conflicted with his minister of roads, - Do you mean "came into conflict with"? "Became conflicted" makes it sounds like he just regretted his choice, I think you mean that the two actually butted heads.

Changed wording

• after Duplessis failed to keep up on his electoral pledges to fend off foreign capital. - It's not clear what is meant by "fend off foreign capital" - fend off from doing what exactly? I think you expand on this later, but I'd move that up here, or at least a quick explanation.

Basically during the 1935 election, he said his (Conservative) platform would be the same as the ALN, and ALN said "we don't want foreign capital in our province, French Canadians deserve to own the province's businesses themselves". He kind of had to do it, but when the moment came to actually implement the agenda, he reneged on his election promises and essentially allowed anyone with money into the province. According to Merriam-Webster it's totally appropriate to use "fend off" the way I did.

• Duplessis also resented the nationalization of hydroelectric plants, as some ALN members proposed while the Union Nationale was still a coalition. - Bit confused here, were the plants already nationalized, or did Duplessis nationalize them because of the ALN faction within his party?

No, the plants were private property until 1944, they just ran with that slogan in the 1935 (and to some extent, 1936) elections. Duplessis hated it, nationalists were desperate to do it. I fixed it.

• Duplessis launched a program of assistance to needy mothers (but not to unwed, divorced or separated women) - Unwed/Divorced/Separated, were these mothers or just women in general? If mothers, I'd replace women with mothers.

If the women had no children, they were ineligible for assistance. Neither were unwed, divorced or separated women, so only married women with children. I fixed the wording.

• (C$2,870,000,000 to C$5,259,000,000 in 2020 dollars) - Template:Inflation an end_year isn't specified here, so it might not be "2020" dollars anymore. I would suggest adding an end year (probably 2023) so that it stays consistent.

I fixed that via {{Inflation/year|CA}}

• and the tempo of the emission of obligations during his first term exceeded that of all of prior administrations since Confederation - Could this maybe be reworded or simplified? "Tempo of the emission of obligations", isn't not very clear what is meant here. is it he took on more debt in his first term than previous administrators?

He did. I simplified the wording.

• Fair Wage Act (French: Loi des salaires raisonnables) - You say "French:" here, but in other places where you give the French term for something you don't. I'd check through to make sure your usage is consistent.

Please do, I used the lang-fr template here. If I didn't do it elsewhere, flag any fragments where you believe we should have French.

• "fair wages" ($4.80–$24 per week, which is $88.27-$441.35 in 2020) - Same comment about the inflation template as above.

Fixed

• "He justified his refusal by stating that "Stalin and his accomplices, including the usurper government of Poland, [...] want[ed] to establish an atheist regime, a godless government which is repugnant to the province of Quebec." " - Here and a few others places where you've translated quotes from French, refer to MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. I think you could add a footnote which includes the French unaltered and be good.

Added the quote from French

• Act to Protect the Province Against Communistic Propaganda, - again for consistency should have the french name alongside

It's there now

• which tied its enaction with Cardinal Villeneuve's supposed undue influence on the government - We haven't heard about Villeneuve yet, maybe quick explanation of why he's important (Cardinal of Quebec)? Also, should wikilink all of "Cardinal Villeneuve" to the person, not breaking up "Cardinal" and "Villeneuve"

The explanation is too large to fit there, we have a whole section for why his (or any other Catholic high functionary's) opinion was important in Quebec; but even then you don't introduce a crucifix throughout the province and then into parliament on a whim. I changed the wikilink to Cardinal Villeneuve.

• and the law provided no appeal to those expropriated - Expropriation means the seizure of assets, is this expressly what the law did?

The source (erroneously) used the term "expropriated" as in permanent seizure, but the law's text allowed for temporary seizure of assets for up to a year and did not allow any appeal from a trial judge's order upholding the Attorney General's finding that the house or whatever was used for communist/Communist purposes. So you were at risk to become homeless because you were a communist (or anything resembling that).

• losing the premiership to Adélard Godbout. - You talk about the Union Nationale earlier in the sentence, so you should keep consistent and refer to the party that won. You'd still be good to mention Godbout was the leader.

Fixed

Second government

• Despite these obstacles, Duplessis would rule the province until his death. - Missing a cite

Doesn't need a cite, he died in office and that's something that is already in the main article.

• Duplessis was the third and the last long-serving premier prior to the Quiet Revolution - This is a confusing sentence, I'd probably drop it.

I don't see it. Before the Quiet Revolution, there were three figures that really defined Quebec's politics on the long term: Gouin, Taschereau and Duplessis. Duplessis is the last of them.

I removed the second "the" and I think it reads better. "the third and the last long-serving" doesn't require that the two qualifiers be interpreted jointly, and it can be read as "the third premier prior to the QR, and the last long-serving premier prior to the QR", which isn't correct. Dropping the "the" requires it to be read as "the /third and last/ long-serving premier". It forces the qualifiers to be associated with "long-serving premier".

OK, thanks.

• Duplessis profited from the tailwinds, but his support was also in many respects due to the internal political climate of Quebec as well as some campaign innovations. - Missing a cite. Also, "profited from the tailwinds", I'm not sure what's being implied here? Could just say he benefited from the political conditions.

That's what is being described in the following two or three sections, so I don't think we need to cite it. I paraphrased it.

• many provincial-level government agencies that were supposed to be functioning by law did not - "Functioning by law" sounds odd - were they legally required to be extant and working? Maybe try rewriting.

Idk about common law systems, but in civil law systems, and Quebec is one, if you say "there is a three-member commission", then you have to appoint three members for that commission and it has to work. Having not enough staffers could be grounds to question its decision in court. Also, in the footnote I describe a parliamentary commission, but then the parliament is not the government, at least technically.

• $3 million (equivalent to $36 million in 2020 dollars) or more,[69] and they rose further to $5 million in 1952 ($49.9 million in 2020) and to $9 million in 1956 ($89.1 million in 2020).[70][h] By the end of Duplessis's rule, the party's war chest ballooned to $18 million ($167 million in 2020). - Same end_year comment I made earlier.

Fixed that.

• Pork barrel spending was a norm before elections to the Assembly, - I think you can drop "to the Assembly"

Done

• Campaign Innovations, a bis of MOS:SANDWICH here. This is a potential target for cutting some media.

What exactly do you want to cut? So maybe one of Lavigne's lectures could go (choose which), but other than that? One is an example of his pamphlets and the other is Duplessis's image, which was consistently used in all Union Nationale election communications and which is described in-text.

It looks better now that it's rearranged

• election posters and the more and more plentiful merchandise increasingly featured Duplessis - What is this merchandise? Could you add a few examples?

That's what Lavigne talks about in his lectures. Mugs, calendars, watches etc.

• but Alexandre Dumas writes that the revival of this adage - I'd explain who Alexandre Dumas is, i.e. not the writer of the Count of Monte Cristo

Good point, will do.

• the press was not enthusiastic or outright hostile to Duplessis - The way this is written sounds like the press was not enthusiastic but was also not outright hostile. Is that correct? Otherwise, I'd say "and in some cases were outright hostile towards Duplessis".

Good point

• (see relevant passage). - I'd wikilink the journal itself and get rid of this parenthetical.

OK

• When the money appeared in late '40s - Where did it appear from? I'd drop this.

The economy went out of crisis and the military no longer consumed as much money, so it appeared in civil circulation.

• As a response to the onslaught of these films, - Onslaught seems like the wrong word. Maybe something like "As a response to these films".

Yeah, I agree

• though paradoxically Duplessis intervened less frequently into the SCP than Godbout - Who's Godbout? Without knowing who they are, it's not clear why this is paradoxical. I'd suggest dropping if it's not needed.

It's not a major detail, but Godbout refers to the premier who ruled in 1939-1944. The paradox is that even though Duplessis had a strong grip on the censorship apparatus, SCP was even more tightly controlled under Godbout, who is not commonly recognized as the one who promoted censorship or propaganda in society.

• Adélard Godbout nevertheless ceded the province's power to - Again, no understanding of who Godbout is at this point, give a quick explanation of who he was.

Premier Adelard Godbout should be ok. We know from earlier he's the one whom Duplessis lost the 1939 election to.

• There has been some criticism of his autonomism from various groups, both to the left and to the right. - I'd replace left/right with "on all side of the political spectrum"

Changed to yet another formulation.

• Flag of Quebec - This section could probably be shortened. Most of the first paragraph could probably be cut and I'd shift the focus onto Duplessis' impact on this issue.

There isn't much to say there, but to me an introduction is in order.

• He proposed that no coat of arms should appear, and tha - Who is "he" in this section? A few names are listed in the previous sentence, I'd name the person rather than saying "he"

Named

• its control of Canadian companies amounted to single digits - Single digit percentage, or just single digit? Like they controlled <9% of businesses, or <9 business altogether? I'd specify the exact number/percentage.

<9%

• In the long term, the budget was balanced and more years saw surpluses than deficits. - This is a contradiction. A balanced budget means no surpluses or deficits. Could you double check what is meant by this?

It's not a contradiction. In 1944-1959, the overall trend of the budget was that expenditures = revenues, almost to the cent. When you split it into years, most years had small surpluses and election years had deficits but on a four-year cycle, it was balanced.

The source you're using doesn't seem to support this. It says that spending and revenue grew at a similar pace but not that they were equal/balanced. I can't find anything in the source that talks about the budget being balanced over the entire period. Could you please provide me the page number/passage where this is said?

Grungaloo, page 576 says this: La croyance générale dans l'historiographie canadienne veut que Duplessis ait été extrêmement conservateur, idéologiquement et financièrement. D'une part, nos données corroborent cette idée d'un gouvernement vivant «selon ses moyens». Les dépenses et les revenus évoluent de façon très semblable et les surplus budgétaires sont plus fréquents que les déficits (voir la figure 1). It is also supported by table 2 (p. 569-570), where the net increase of debt is under the emprunts column (negative numbers are for years when the province decreased its debt load). The "autre part" speaks of rapidly increasing expenditures, particularly on education, but this was offset by increases in tax receipts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Les dépenses et les revenus évoluent de façon très semblable - This means they grew at a similar pace and not that they're equal/balanced. Also, a balanced budget refers to one where expenditures = revenue. Table 2 only shows revenue and borrowing, but not expenditures, and can't be used to determine if a budget was balanced. You can fix this issue in text by saying "In the long term, government revenue and spending kept pace with each other" or something to that effect. grungaloo (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For me, the measure of how much they borrow is an indicator of how much surplus they have, but so be it, I won't be an asshole about that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• As much as 3,900 sq mi (10,000 km2) of territory was granted for exploration to Hollinger North Shore Exploration Co. - This is an incomplete sentence. Did you mean to join it with the following one? It's missing a comma if so.

No it's not, it's fine as it is. I deliberately split that sentence in two, so the text starts with "That company" (North Shore).

• form of paternalism that must be avoided, and stressed that the government "cannot replace charity and philanthropy". - A source is needed after a quote.

The source was there, but I doubled it just to be sure.

• or for private medical insurance packages (67.8% of total costs) - 67.8% of what total costs? Do you mean of all money spent by individuals on healthcare, 67% went to insurance? I'd maybe drop this, I'm not sure if it's needed.

Reformulated it.

I acknowledge the ping, will address your concerns in due time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Grungaloo I went through your suggestions and I implemented most fixes you proposed. I am waiting for further feedback. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with your responses, the only issue I have is with the wording of the balanced budget because the source doesn't support this claim. Once that's resolved I think this is good for GA. grungaloo (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Premier Maurice Duplessis's hatred of communism was so strong that his campaign once took a full-page ad accusing the government of Canada of "forcing Quebeckers to eat communist eggs"? Source: For the image of the ad, see this article in Le Droit; source used: Linteau, Paul-André; Durocher, René; Robert, Jean-Claude (1991). Quebec since 1930, p. 281
  • ALT1: ... that Télesphore-Damien Bouchard, leader of the opposition in Quebec while Maurice Duplessis was premier, described his rule as "the only portable dictatorship in the democratic world"? Source: Swan, George Steven (1984). "A Preliminary Comparison of Long's Louisiana and Duplessis' Quebec". Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association. 25 (3): 289–319. ISSN 0024-6816. JSTOR 4232361.
  • ALT2: ... that during Maurice Duplessis's second term as premier of Quebec, his government didn't run any tenders because, since the government would never award them to enemies, he deemed them "hypocritical"? Source: Roberts, Leslie (1963). The Chief: A Political Biography of Maurice Duplessis. Clarke, Irwin, p. 93.
  • ALT3: ... that Premier Maurice Duplessis, angry at the fact that the federal government of Canada was taking taxes at the expense of the provinces, once demanded that Ottawa "return our loot"? Source: Gagnon, Alain-G.; Sarra-Bournet, Michel, eds. (1997). Duplessis: entre la grande noirceur et la société libérale (PDF). Montréal: Éditions Québec Amérique. ISBN 2-89037-935-3. OCLC 78036516, p. 195
  • ALT4: ... that Premier Maurice Duplessis adopted the current flag of Quebec? Source: "70 ans pour le drapeau national du Québec". Radio-Canada.ca (in Canadian French). 19 January 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2022.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Political prisoners in Poland
  • Comment: Choose the most interesting, there is a lot to choose from and I guess you will have your own ideas, which will be great. I don't particularly feel like any one is better than the other

Improved to Good Article status by Szmenderowiecki (talk). Self-nominated at 05:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Premiership of Maurice Duplessis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: May we use this for the April Fools' Day set? ALTs 0, 1, and 3 are all great options MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I see then, thanks for letting me know. Just one more needed Szmenderowiecki. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 9. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If the nominator feels that they have done less than 20 noms this can go forward or they can do the double. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I only see eight nominations credited in Szmenderowiecki's talk page history. Under the circumstances, TonyTheTiger's reasoning for requesting another QPQ is not justified, so I'm restoring the previous tick by reviewer MyCatIsAChonk. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the tick, my page says this should be the eighth nomination, but I may be mistaken in my count. If I'm not and we can move on, let's go with the original option (the very first one) or ALT3, up to promoter's discretion, but I don't particularly care if it's on 1 April (Duplessis was born on the 20th). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)