Wikipedia:Peer review/Maurice Duplessis/archive1

Maurice Duplessis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to solicit feedback for improvements of the article before undergoing successive GA/FA reviews. This concerns both this article and Premiership of Maurice Duplessis, which I had to spin out because of the breadth of material concerning this politician. The starting version of the article in question was this one.

This article is, in part, a translation of the French article () of the same name, but it was significantly restructured and enhanced with new information (the only one I omitted is about the music pieces that mention Duplessis, for which I could not find adequate summary in reliable sources. The French version simply refers to each song separately, which I think is an instance of WP:OR). The information I need is this:

Compliance with the Manual of Style, and catching basic grammar/vocabulary inconsistencies
Finding exact pages for quotes within this book and fulfilling WP:RX requests I posted the previous month.
Finding if I twisted anything from the French language, which I don't know that well (reviewers are expected to know French in this case)
Whether indeed some sections are too detailed in scope, as one user indicated when putting a cleanup template (I try to be comprehensive but I may sometimes overdo it)

Obviously, other suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

Lede is too long. Shortening it to four paragraphs, maximum.
Ancestry is too long. Shorten this paragraph to one or two sentences.
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, which verifies the information that proceeds it.
"Rise to Power" is too long, especially for something that takes place over 5 years. Reduce this to a couple paragraphs, maximum.
There are lots of sources listed in the References that should either be used as sources, or removed. For French sources, this might be a bit more difficult to do if you don't speak French, but the English sources should be used or removed since this is an English Wikipedia.
Lots of academic literature has been written about Duplessis, and a significant amount in English. If you are unsure of the translation of a French source (or couldn't access it yourself) then replacing it with a high-quality English source is acceptable.
I suggest reading John A. Macdonald for ideas on how long various section should be: Macdonald is a comparable politician in terms of importance in Canadian history so this will help guide the length of these sections (and what to cut) for this article.
While rewriting various sections, consider reading User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and WP:REDEX to help improve the prose. These were excellent in improving my prose when I was writing my FAs.

I hope this article is continuously improved because he is a very important Canadian political figure. I look forward to reading it when the prose is reduced. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I don't have access to a PC or a laptop, so it's much harder to edit articles when speaking of big changes. I have received your feedback and I hope to implement it within a couple of days.

One thing I want to clarify is that I understand French fairly well, so what I meant is that I would be grateful for more perspectives that I may have missed while writing the article. If anyone has better access to libraries (I relied on fr.wiki text for facts sourced sourced to Rumilly, for example), your help is welcome.

I don't see the rule in MOS:LISTOFWPRKS saying that books not used in-text must be removed, could you please point it?

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I did not respond sooner, real life has gotten busy. For your question about listing the sources, WP:GENREF gives more information about this. While listing references that are not used in the article as inline citations is allowed, it is generally done in underdeveloped articles. One of the criteria of a featured article is that the article is well researched: if references are listed but not used as inline citations, reviewers at FAC will question this and ask if the source has indeed been consulted, or if it is just listed so that hopefully someone else will read it and incorporate it into the article. If the source is not useful to add as an inline citation, then it is probably better to remove it as we want to encourage readers to consult the best sources if they want more information (and the best sources are the ones that are used as inline citations). Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, will look into that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I made a rewrite of both articles according to your suggestions, could you have a look? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]