Talk:Edith Rogers (Alberta politician)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of your concerns inline, which I hope is okay. I'll respond to the others shortly. Steve Smith (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've culled a few links, and I believe that only the following terms remain linked more than twice:

Alberta general election, 1940 and Alberta general election, 1935 - these are each linked once in the lead, once more in the section of the article dealing with that subject, and once in the election results section. I think all three places are places where the reader could plausibly wish to click on the link.
Ponoka (provincial electoral district) - this is linked once in the body of the text, once in the infobox, and twice in the election results. The same rationale as above applies. Moreover, as I understand it the major arguments against overlinking are that it makes the text visually ugly (which I don't think is a concern in infoboxes or election results tables) and that it can make it difficult for readers to pick out the relevant links (which I don't see as an issue here). I could remove one of the election results instances if you insist, but I'd rather not.
Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Social Credit Party of Alberta, and independent (politician) - these are each linked once in the article body (twice in the case of the CCF, which is linked in both the lead and the relevant section of the article), and multiple times in the election results tables. My argument about election results links above applies here too, as does my offer to grudgingly remove all but one of those links.
Percy McKelvey is linked once in the article text, once in the infobox, and twice in the election results tables. My statements above about Ponoka apply here too.

All right, those exceptions are fine. Thanks.

Not primarily, except between 1935 and 1940. I could add "politician" to that part of the infobox, but I think the part just above it that describes her term as MLA would make doing so rather redundant.

Okay, although I would argue that she was also a politician as a school trustee and as a political organizer.

The latter now (which is why that's the name of the article), the former in Rogers' day.

I presume the professional qualification was not transferable between provinces, but this is a guess (and therefore not in the article).

"Disillusioned with teaching in rural schoolhouses, she took a business course and began work as a bank teller for the Merchants Bank of Canada, which later merged with the Bank of Montreal, in Edgerton;[2][3] This was an unusual career choice for a woman at the time" - is this one sentence or two?

Because I'm snotty, I'll point out that starting the independent clause after a semicolon with a capital is perfectly acceptable. However, it's not my usual practice (in this article or elsewhere), and I've changed it for consistency.

A typo I somehow missed. I'm terrible at proofreading my own writing (apparently so are the DYK people, who accepted a hook based partly on that sentence). Anyhow, fixed.

Gah! These archive sites seem to hate deep linking. I'll figure out a way around it, which will probably involve changing the format of the entire reference.
I've tried a fix. It's not optimal, but I think it's as good as it gets. I'd welcome any suggestions about how to change it.

Likewise.

It's used by the sources (and I think is the best available term, as I hope the linked article will show).

"The ineffectiveness of governments in the face of the Great Depression soon disillusioned her with conventional politics" is a decidedly non-NPOV phrase unless directly stated by the source

I've tried a reword. I did not take that wording from the source, but I think it's common ground that governments all over the world were ineffective at combating the effects of the Great Depression; I'd be very interested to see any historian argue otherwise.

No problems here