Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian federal election, 1957/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 Karanacs 17:39, 30 March 2010 [1].

Canadian federal election, 1957

Canadian federal election, 1957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This is an offshoot of my John Diefenbaker FA, about his first election as Canada's Progressive Conservative leader, in which he engineered one of the greatest upsets in Canadian history, and perhaps in any parliamentary system. He had a little help, from an advertising executive and from a fifteen year old boy who didn't like the thought that the art of heckling was dying. How they pulled it off, well read the article! Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to put them in there. Do you know the proper coding for that? The descriptions are there, there just doesn't seem to be a way in the election infobox code to make them show.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone fixed the alt text because it is showing now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did. :) For the portraits, it's just as for normal images, and for the map, I had to add a parameter to the infobox template. The alt text for the portraits is fine, but that for the map needs work. Saying that the different provinces have different colors isn't particularly informative. See WP:ALT#Maps. Perhaps you can just list the provinces and territories every party won. Ucucha 00:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. I've followed your suggestion re the Canada map alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, alt text is fine now. Thanks! Ucucha 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was fast! Eubulides (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Not Passed - 10 images. Some are fine, like the flickr photo and the svgs, but File:Stlaurentnews.jpg has a big tag that there's no proof that the license given is valid- based on this, and several of the other images use the same licensing (copyright but free-to-use from the Library and Archives Canada). --PresN 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the tag, and have told the editor at commons who affixed the tag so and have contested the deletion. These are part of the Duncan Cameron collection, see here "Photographs: All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction." I find that the correspondence does not address the question of the Cameron photographs, but speaks more widely (unhappily, while the response from LAC is there, the question asked of LAC is not given. But jeez, no restrictions on use or reproduction? How can you be any more clear than that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that several of these images were in the John Diefenbaker FAC and Elcobbola passed the images, with the same templates. I've asked him to comment here. Might as well figure out where we are on these.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When evaluating the images used in John Diefenbaker, I was unaware of the letter from Ms. Cloutier. The collection's terms of use ("no restrictions on use or reproduction") and terms on individual images (e.g. "Restrictions on use: As per 24 Nov. 1993, permission no longer required by Estate for reproduction as long as proper credit line is included with each photograph" found here for File:Diefmontreal.jpg) seemed sufficient indication that the images were indeed free. The Cloutier letter, however, offers certain clarification; it indicates that, for some images, derivatives are not allowed ("to ensure ... authenticity") and that "no restrictions on use or reproduction" apparently has the caveat that the archive be contacted to provide the image (again, for reasons of "authenticity"). How the Archive can logically reconcile the latter with their online, open-access hosting of images, I don't know. In any case, it seems an unfortunate clarification of a, frankly, misleading terms of use policy. How the collection's terms of use, individual images' terms of use and the Cloutier letter should be interpreted - alone and in interaction with one another - is something that should probably have a broader discussion. Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I do here and now? Perhaps compose fair use rationales in case they are found not to be free use? Would that answer the call? Perhaps on the image description page, put a note explaining the dispute with a link here and state that in the event that this is found to be not free use, my fair use rationale is ... of course the image would no longer be on Commons in that case. Ideas? Btw, thanks for your thoughts and for your image work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six Library and Archives Canada images, File:16th Canadian Ministry.jpg is not impacted (source indicates "Copyright: Expired"). Regarding the others:
  • File:Diefmontreal.jpg - fair use would likely not be possible, as File:Dief1939.jpg, for example, is verifiably free (NFCC#1) and could be cropped as needed. I realise he's almost 20 years younger in that image than at the time of the election, but I don't foresee how a readers ability to understand the election (NFCC#8) would be genuinely impacted by the man's physical appearance.
  • File:Stlaurentnews.jpg - an alternative image, File:Louisstlaurent.jpg, is verifiably free. Source indicates "Copyright expired".
  • File:Martin-Pearson-StLaurent.jpg - I don't understand what the physical appearances of these men would contribute to a readers understanding of the 1957 election. What rationale would you propose if fair use were to be claimed?
  • File:1957election.jpg - Same concern. What understanding is imparted by seeing men standing in a queue?
  • File:Stlaurentresigns.jpg - Same concern. How does the image help a reader to understand that St. Laurent resigned?
I'd suggest removing or commenting-out the questionable images until the issue is resolved (and, of course, restoring them later if it's a positive resolution). I realise the free equivalents are, unfortunately, of lower technical quality, but freeness trumps quality so long as the quality remains "sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose". Эlcobbola talk 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, any Canadian photograph Jan 1, 1946 or later is still in copyright in the US. Yes, the St. Laurent photograph you mention is copyright expired in Canada, but not the US. The publication date and photographer are also uncertain. I would appreciate it, Elcobbola, if you would start a discussion someplace, I do not have the copyright expertise. If a discussion is under way, I will comment out the images and do the best I can, even though it is going to be light on images. Perhaps I can blow up the Mackenzie King cabinet image and get decent shots of Howe and St. Laurent, but I don't know. And maybe there are some US federal shots.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thorough enough discussing File:Louisstlaurent.jpg; I don't believe it's PD in truth, but it was involved in this deletion request and was determined to be PD. Consensus says it's so... but I suppose suggesting it was somewhat like WP:BEANS. There's the possibility, however, of it actually being {{PD-US-1996}} per the source's discussion of copies and the USC 17 definition of publication, but that's a long discussion with its own wrinkles. An alternative would indeed be very much preferable. Эlcobbola talk 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll keep looking. I do think a renewed discussion would be valuable, at commons I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A discussion about several of the images has been opened here. (Note that I don't necessarily want them deleted; a deletion discussion is merely the format in which such discussions occur on the Commons.) Эlcobbola talk 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am gradually commenting out the suspect images and will be guided by the outcome of the debate. As for the Diefenbaker article, I'm looking for backup images there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning supportSupport: (see below for more detailed comments on the prose). I was too late for the peer review (so was everyone else), so I'm not through the prose yet, but it has all the hallmarks of your customary formidable and painstaking research. Can I meantime raise a couple of points about the infobox map:-

  • It's quite difficult to read the figures when they are superimposed on the darker colours.
  • It's also hard to understand exactly what the colours are representing. I found the key, top right, difficult to fathom
  • I am hopelessly ignorant on Canadian geography. Would it be possible to identify the provinces or territories?

I will leave image issues in the current capable hands. Meantime, I'm reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, this seems to be an image which was created for all the Canadian elections (though changing as borders changed). There were errors in it. I contacted User:Lokal Profil at Commons [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lokal_Profil#File:Canada_1957_Federal_Election.svg here. Would you mind expressing the concern on the image there? As I am hopeless on graphics, I cannot change it directly. I found Lokal Profil, who I had not dealt with previously, very helpful. Yes, I could pass it along, but you might express your concern better. Whichever way you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done as you suggest. If there is no joy forthcoming there, there are several Wikipedia editors who are adept at tweaking and labelling maps. Most of the maps that appear in my expedition articles have been knocked into shape by Ruhrfisch or Finetooth. Whether they are available to help in this instance I don't know (both are extremely busy), but there's no harm in approaching them. (See Voyage of the Karluk for example) Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask them, if need be. Did you note the postal abbreviations on the map? It is difficult to squeeze "Prince Edward Island" onto a large scale map ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prose need to be improved. Here are examples just from the lead:

  • Opening: Canadian ... Canadian ... Canada ... Canadian, all within five seconds. Why is "Canada" linked when all the others are more specific targets that go there anyway? ("Chain" linking.) Is the HoC in Ottawa the only one so named in the country? If so, couldn't C. be dropped from that one? Suggest: "A Canadian federal election was held June 10, 1957, to elect the 265 members of the House of Commons for the 23rd Parliament. In one of the great upsets in Canadian political history, the ...".
  • Negative swings (infobox) need to be minus signs, not en dashes. Sorry to be fussy. Oops, now I see it's worse: they're hyphens.
  • "The Liberal Party had governed the nation since 1935, and had won five consecutive elections." I find the "and" odd. (See this).
  • "The Liberals were generally successful, with the nation prosperous and an increasing welfare state." Three problems; see the nation was an increasing welfare state? See here.
  • "However, the opposition depicted the Liberals as arrogant and unresponsive to Canadians' needs." I presume you mean during the election campaign, not for the entire 22 years?
  • "Cabinet" small c.
  • Smoother without the comma? "the Prime Minister read his television speeches from a script, and refused to wear makeup for the appearances"
  • "longtime" ... not sure, might be ok, but why not "traditional"? Tony (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Brian's reviews usually hash the text pretty well, I think you'll get what you want there, Tony. I cleaned up the suspect text, most of which stems from the pre-me version (I don't like to entirely rewrite, Wikipedia is a collaboration), cleaned up the dash issues, made it clear we're talking about the Liberals' fifth term in office on the arrogance issue (no doubt the PC party complained about it before then, but that's for another article) and massaged the welfare state text. I changed "longtime" to "usual" (certainly that had been Tory strategy throughout their wilderness years, but 1930 is less clear, although the Tories actually won a fair number of seats there then). I cut that comma, though I think the sentence reads well either way. Why would you put Cabinet lower case? The Cabinet is a recognized, specific, formal body. In fact, I'll throw in a pipe to Cabinet of Canada. Many thanks for your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet normally takes a small c; likewise, three cabinet ministers resigned. These are generic usages, not titular. Please see MoS.
What about the rest of the text? I reviewed only the top to exemplify. Tony (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) PS Is the comma in the title necessary? What does MoS/Naming conventions say about this? Tony (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on prose: I have been going through the prose, but multiple commitments on and off-wiki are hindering me. Here are some observations on the first few sections. I can't promise there will be more, but I will do what I can. (I have made a few minor prose fixes myself, nothing major):-

  • Article title: the comma looks superfluous (Ah, I see that Tony has raised this)
  • Lead
    • I have linked "plurality" which is an unfamiliar term in the UK
    • I have problems with "The Liberals were generally successful, with the nation prosperous and with the government gradually building a welfare state." The statement "The Liberals were generally successful" reads too subjectively, and there is some awkwardness in the rest of the phrasing. Also we have three successive sentences more or less beginning with "the Liberals". How about a rephrase of the second sentence: "Under these governments national prosperity rose, and steps were taken towards the building of a welfare state."
    • "The Tories ran a campaign centered on their new leader, and which took advantage of the potentials of television." In this usage, "potential" is a mass noun that is not pluralised. Also, the "and" is redundant.
  • Liberal domination
    • "When Mackenzie King retired in 1948, he was succeeded by another Liberal, Louis St Laurent..." Do we need to be told that St Laurent was "another Liberal"?
    • "gentle prosperity"? What does this mean? (And budget surpluses don't always follow from prosperity, gentle or otherwise.)
  • Tories in the wilderness
    • The focus of this section is the poor performance of the PC party after 1935. So do we need information about the number of seats won by the Liberals in 1945? In 1953, OK, because that was the election immediately before the one we're reading about. But the 1945 information is not particularly useful.
    • "closely tied to that role" → "closely associated with that role"
    • "The Tories favoured a protectionist economic policy, and generally drew about 30% of the vote in federal elections." Conjunction connects unrelated clauses.
  • Runup...
    • My dictionary specifies a hyphen in the noun form of "run-up" (it gives AmEng spellings, but does not give "runup")
    • "The final years before the 1957 election were marked by conflict between the Liberals and the opposition parties." Umm, isn't this rather stating the obvious? It would indeed be odd if the years before the election were marked by harmony between government and opposition.
    • Describing a procedure as a "debacle", unless it is sourced, is POVish
    • The Regenstreif quote is too short for blockquote treatment snd should be absorbed into the text

Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on these. I don't know what to do about the article name, please note Canadian federal election, 1993, United States Senate election in California, 1994, United States presidential election, 2000, United Kingdom general election, 1970 by way of example. It seems to be the common naming practice across Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made those changes. The only thing I did not change was the sentence about the number of Liberal seats in 1945. I cannot expect the reader to understand from how many seats the Conservatives had, their position in the House of Commons. In addition, the 1945 election was unusual in that a large number of minor party candidates and independents were elected.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the changes to the images, could I get someone to do a revised image check? And commenting on Brian's concern about the map and the labeling of provinces, if it is a dealbreaker, I will just take it down. Note that the map in United States Senate election in California, 1950 had no labeling at all, just red or blue counties. All it really is, is a graphic of the "Vote by Province" section of the article--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a deal-breaker – the results are as you say tabulated later on. It's just that some people don't look down that far...but I appreciate the difficulties in tinkering with graphics of this kind, and no one else has raised this concern. However, I do think that in a later graphic ("Election" section) you ought to indicate that one square = one member, as is done on the image page. Having read through the rest of the article (swiftly, I must admit) I see no glaring prose problems. There are no doubt minor fixes that could be made, but not to the extent of withholding promotion. I have upgraded my support level, but may still tinker with the later prose sections. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Lead
  • I'd prefer things to be slightly simpler. "A Canadian federal election was held June 10, 1957, to elect the 265 members of the House of Commons." is easier as "The Canadian federal election on June 10, 1957, elected 265 members of the House of Commons."; "As the Liberals served their fifth term in office," is easier as "During the Liberals' fifth term in office," and "Tories concentrated much of their resources on" is easier as "Tories concentrated on". I'd change the last sentence to avoid repetition of "seats" and use of "minor": "With the remaining seats won by other parties, the PC party only had a plurality in the House of Commons, but the margin was sufficient to make John Diefenbaker Canada's first Tory Prime Minister since 1935."
Article body
  • The "run-up" section is a bit dismissive of three provinces. Perhaps "newest province Newfoundland, smallest province Prince Edward Island, and prairie province Manitoba" would be an improvement.
  • In the phrase "Quebec Tory PC William Hamilton", what does "PC" stand for? If "Progressive Conservative" then remove as it is a repeat of "Tory". If "Privy Councillor" then expand as the abbreviation "PC" was used before only for the party. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made those changes generally, except as noted below, though I varied on your suggested phrasing. The PC for Hamilton is my goof, I meant to say MP. With respect to the images, the 1939 image is the latest free use image I have of him, pending the outcome of the deletion debate on the Duncan Cameron images (which is anyone's guess right now, opinions seem to be all over the map). I cannot put in a fair use image of him there, it would be decoration (the Dief article certainly contains later images, but they are all caught up in this deletion debate). Basically, we have what we have on images. The latest time a Dief image could be of which would be free of copyright both in Canada and the US, and assuming copyright formalities were not followed in the US, would be December 31, 1945. I know of no image of Dief from then, and doubt he would have aged much judging by the famous photo of him from 1946 in the House of Commons chamber.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments: Well-written and sourced articles, just a few minor concerns to get out of the way.
  • Could you move the Mackenzie King cabinet image up a paragraph? On my screen, it squashes the section title I don't suppose any of these images are high-quality enough to make good photo restoration worthwhile?
  • "During the Liberals's fifth term in office..." - possibly clarify that it was the fifth of the five consecutive terms, as opposed to fifth ever
  • Careful of repetitive phrasing. For example, first paragraph under Background: "The Liberals...The Liberals"
  • "Quebecer" - I've usually seen "Quebecker" or "Quebecois", any particular reason you've chosen this spelling? Quebec notes both, and our articles redirect to "Quebecker"
  • "Tories in the wilderness" - is there a...less true section title? Probably not encyclopedic as it stands
  • "The party was believed to be the party of the rich, and was seen as closely tied to English-speaking Canada. Much of the party's base was in the province of Ontario, and the PC party was perceived to be no friend of Quebec" - repetitive and awkward as written
  • "The Tories attacked Pearson for, as they said, being an errand boy for the United States government; he responded that it was better to be such a lackey than to be a colonial errand boy doing Britain's will unquestioningly" - should some of this be a direct quote (especially "errand boy"?)
  • "hinting to the Commons that the allegations were false" - could be clearer. The entire paragraph is somewhat vague and emotional
  • Would it be possible to include a bit more information on the Social Credit and CCF promises in the Issues section?
  • Second-last paragraph in Issues uses the word "issue" quite a bit, and the whole section could use less "contend(ed/ing)"
  • Given that the title for the first table under Campaign says that they're all from CIPO, why is it necessary to have the "polling firm" column? "Forecast" and "Results" could be included in the with the date. Also, why is there a difference in the final column in the last two rows?
  • What I meant was, in the final column, why does one row have a dash while one has a hyphen? Definitely not a big issue
Oh. Because I'm pretty bad at telling the two apart? My bad, I'll correct it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he "privately predicted" an increase in seats, why were reporters involved? Seems contradictory as written
  • Social Credit section uses both "programme" and "program"
  • Perhaps include a brief mention (1-2 sentences) about the unofficial parties? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments. Of course, I'll make most of the changes. The actual term used by the Tories towards Pearson was "chore boy", I figured that would not be understood by a 2010 audience so changed it to synonyms. And Pearson in response made reference to the phrase "Ready, aye, ready" which would take too much explaining, so I avoided direct quotes there. On the polls, I basically adapted the table from the 1993 article, I figured for sake of consistency in tables across articles to leave the columns as they are, even though it does not appear that any other polling company was involved. The last two columns are different as the forecast is not an actual poll, it is their prediction of the outcome, and of course there are no undecided in the last row because this is the result of the election; it is inserted in there for comparison. I'll get to work now. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Quebecer". The sources seem to use that term, and most of the sources are Canadian and from the 1960s, so I just chose to use the term.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all changes that don't require me to look at Meisel, which I won't be able to look at until tonight or tomorrow. He wrote comprehensively about he Socred and CCF platforms.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, three supports, no opposes. Someone might want to doublecheck the images, but I think we're OK there now. Alt text done, and the prose has been worked over pretty thoroughly since Tony commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit on the Socreds, I think the CCF position is fairly well covered. Unless I've missed something, nihil obstat.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.