|
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Okay, I'll take this one...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
 On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Lead: the second paragraph seems a bit disjunct. Should consider adding transitions to link sentences together.
 Done
- Education and World War II: First, what is "Sciences Po"? I assume it's Political Science, but it should be either spelled out or linked. Second, shouldn't use "profoundly" more than once in a section unless quoting.
- Done it's just a nickname of the institute, irrelevant to Trudeau, removed.
- Early career: In whose opinion is "La grève" an "important book"? Also, it is twice explained in this section alone that Duplessis was the premier of Quebec.
 Not done it's "important to the subject" [of the asbestos strike], easy to imagine since there's not much literature written on that subject.
- Justice minister and leadership candidate: Who "persuaded" Trudeau to run for the leadership? Also, should more clearly describe the "many" who opposed him - they were more conservative? Should say so rather than repeating "many". Finally, there is no date given for the convention, so saying that he became Prime Minister "two weeks later" lacks context, even though that date is given.
- Done reworded run for leadership; Not done opponents identified in next sentence; Done Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968 is linked and dated.
- Prime Minister: Should avoid the use of conditional verbs (eg., would). Generally, rumors don't have definite sources - instead of "rumoured by Paul", consider "suggested by" or "insinuated by". Continue to define "many" using general descriptions (eg, the conservative wing, the press, etc). "Documented antics" would probably include the pirouette. Words like "glaringly" and "accused" should be avoided without sources or qualifications. Since there is also a section on marriage and family, the paragraph on Margaret can be excluded here.
- Return to power: Verb tense should be maintained as much as possible (for example, since the victory "highlighted" the divide, should say "the party won no seats"). Continue to define "many" using general descriptions (eg, the conservative wing, the press, etc).
- Bilingualism: Since New Brunswick is the only "officially" bilingual province, why is Ontario also listed as a provincial government that has incorporated bilingualism? If official bilingualism is not the criteria for inclusion, shouldn't Manitoba (which is de facto bilingual) also be included?
- Cultural legacy: Multiculturalism should definitely be linked. The statement "finally had proper homes" should be qualified: why did they not before? What changed? Also, why is Cancon controversial?
- Legacy with respect to Quebec: Continue to define "many" using general descriptions (eg, the conservative wing, the press, etc).
- Intellectual contributions: this section might have a couple more internal links. Should also avoid terms like "unfortunately".
- Honours: in the last bullet, where should the parentheses end? Also, the honorary doctorate from Duke should be included under "Honorary Degrees" rather than "Other honours".
- Trudeau in music: The term "name-checked" should be explained or omitted. Grammar is rather neglected throughout this section.
- Bibliography: Per WP:MOS, this section generally includes works by the article's subject; a second section ("Further reading", perhaps) should be used for works about Trudeau. Also, the films should have the same font size.
Accuracy and verifiability[edit]- Lead: Post-nominal QC and MSRC are not listed under Honours; should either include there or exclude here. Also, the infobox uses the abbreviation FSRC, where the lead uses MSRC - which is correct?
- Early life: Trudeau's closeness with his siblings and affiliation with Quebec nationalism should be cited, as should the remarks attributed to Lalonde (where and when did he say these things?)
- Education and World War II: The statement beginning "Pierre said..." should be cited.
- Early career: This section could use more references in general, especially for statements that seem to reflect an opinion. Even if a source is referred to (for example, "In his memoirs"), a footnote would still be appreciated.
- Law professor, enters politics: More references in general.
- Justice minister and leadership candidate: More references in general, in particular for opinions ("many saw...") and the percentage of delegates who voted for Trudeau.
- Prime Minister: aim for at least one citation per paragraph here, especially for opinions or things that were controversial at the time. The second-last paragraph in particular needs several citations.
- Defeat and opposition: Would suggest a citation for "persuaded to stay on". Persuaded by who?
- Return to power: Add citations to first and last paragraph (especially "Western alienation" and "long walk in the snow"), as well as the referendum results.
- Final years: add citations for opinions presented in this section.
- Marriage and children: Should have a citation for first single parent divorcee PM.
- Legacy: Need citation for "cited as reasons for his popularity". Existing "citation needed" tags should be addressed. Citations needed generally throughout subsections. Make sure that citations are always after punctuation, not before (in "intellectual" section, as well as "Trudeau in... later).
- Honours: should aim to have one reference for each honour (except for the schools and airport)
- Footnotes: Links 3, 4, 5, 6, 36, 51, 64, 69 are dead. Certain citations are duplicated; these should be named for multiple use per Wikipedia:Citing sources. It would be nice if all of the citations used the same format (for example, 11 and 12 are the same source, but look completely different), but that isn't an absolute requirement. Also should avoid using ibid; use the multiple use format instead.
This element is relatively well-done - the article is broad in its scope, although certain more important elements (for example, the October Crisis) coudl receive slightly more emphasis.
This article tends to use some weasel and peacock terms. All sections should be evaluated for neutrality and word choice. Certain offending sections have been listed in the preceding review. Consider checking against WP:WTA.
This article is fairly stable; there are no on-going edit wars as far as I can tell.
Both images have suitable captions, are relevant, and are tagged with their copyright status. The second has a fair-use rationale. While that is all that is required by the good article criteria, I would recommend adding a few more images: there are several in the articles listed under Template:Pierre Trudeau. This is completely optional, but it really would help break up the text and improve the article. |
