Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TFA Blurb

[edit]

William Lyon Mackenzie (March 12, 1795 – August 28, 1861) was a Scottish-born Canadian-American journalist and politician. He founded newspapers critical of the Family Compact, represented York County in the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada and aligned with Reformers. Dundee-born, Mackenzie emigrated to York, Upper Canada (now Toronto), in 1820 and published his first newspaper in 1824. Mackenzie was elected Toronto's first mayor but failed his re-election for the Legislative Assembly in 1836. In 1837, he commanded the rebels in the Upper Canada Rebellion, but was defeated at the Battle of Montgomery's Tavern. He fled to the U.S. to rally American support for an invasion of Upper Canada. This violated the Neutrality Act and he was arrested and imprisoned. He discovered and published documents that outlined corrupt financial transactions and government appointments by New York state officials. He represented the constituency of Haldimand County in the province's legislature from 1851 to 1858, and died in August 1861.(Full article...)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review follow-up

[edit]

I moved the image review here because I will be posting links below and I don't want to contribute to the transclusion problem on the main FAC page. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto's second market sketch

[edit]

The image came from the Toronto Public Library, the library board of the city of Toronto. They currently possess the sketch. A link to the image is here: [1]. TPL says the sketch was created in 1888 and is in the Public Domain. No publication information is given. I can remove it if there are copyright problems. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, it's public domain in Canada but not necessarily in the US. I believe it would have come out of copyright in Canada in 2000 (death date + 50 years), after the URAA date. I would remove it unless we can confirm a pre-1926 publication. (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Mackenzie portrait

[edit]

This image was obtained through Library and Archives Canada, whose website can be found here: [2]. The portrait wasn't published; I think it was a gift commissioned by Mackenzie to his wife. LAC has the name of the author but no other information about them. The LAC record says the copyright has expired. I'd prefer not to remove it, and I don't think I need to if the Canadian government as declared that its copyright has expired. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Schade - Copied from FA review

[edit]

This section was originally contributed to the FA review of the article, but has been removed from there on demand by user SandyGeorgia. It mainly consists of critical remarks by user Johannes Schade acting as FA reviewer, but lacking experience, and reactions to these remarks by the FA nominator, user Z1720. There are also some remarks by user Twofingered Typist.

User Johannes Schade wrote: I am here because I contributed in an Peer Review of the article and was invited by the nominator to participate here again. This is my first as a FA reviewer and have no FA article to my credit. I am not so sure of the rules of the game and the criteria. Please call me to order for any faux-pas immediately. Seen my lack of experience, I feel I should not vote (neither support nor oppose) but I hope some of my comments might be useful.

General Remarks

[edit]

I have reread the article, read the GA review and some WP articles about Canadian History. I agree with the GA reviewer, the user "Go Phightins!", that the article is generally well-written, informative, well researched and verified with many citations, but that the doings of the subject, William Lyon Mackenzie (WLM), remain difficult to understand because of a lack of suitable (but concise) background information. This essential lines of this background seem to me that Canada had an old-fashioned relatively authoritarian government on the British model that did not compare well with the more democratic structures of the neighbouring United States. The Parliament was bicameral with an lower house elected by the land-owning class and an upper house whose members were appointed for life. The country was ruled by the lieutenant-governor, appointed by the king, who had a right of veto. The Anglican church got priority-treatment while Catholics, Presbyterians etc. were side-lined. WLM wanted Upper Canada to become a Republic on the American model and took up arms for this purpose. Papineau did the same in Lower Canada. Both failed the article should try to explain why WLM failed in this endeavour. However, his struggle seems to have brought improvements the new structures of the Act of Union (1840) for united Province of Canada were a bit more democratic.

Prose

[edit]
Lede

Generalities: The first two paragraphs follow the chronology of his life but the third paragraph is a miscellany containing many elements that do not belong in a lede and elements that should go elsewhere. Perhaps the lede should have 3 paragraphs that describe his life before, during, and after the revolt. The revolt, its reasons and consequences should be described in more detail than what is there now. Remarks per paragraph and sentence below.

  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. I would move the Efn from after the lifespan parenthesis to immediately after his name.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. As the lede should give less detail than the body, I propose to leave the exact dates of the lifespan to the body and give only the years in the lede "(1795–1861)".
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. I suggest to be more precise with the tenses: "Growing up in Dundee" -> "Having grown up in Dundee"
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "immigrated to York, Upper Canada". I had never heard of York or Upper Canada and I believe few readers would have. Toronto however is widely known. I suggest to help the reader by introducing Toronto right here, e.g. "immigrated to Toronto, then York, Upper Canada" or "immigrated to York, Upper Canada, now called Toronto."
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "publisher" is not a well-known profession. I would have called him a "journalist", or perhaps "journalist and publisher".
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The how-maniest parliament of Upper Canada this was is unnecessary detail at the level of the lede. Hide the "10th" in "10th Parliament of Upper Canada"; "Parliament of Upper Canada" should be good enough but keep the original link. However, as Upper Canada had a bicameral system it would be necessary to specify that he sat in the lower House or House of Assembly.
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. I found "elected ... as a legislator from York" confusing. Aren't all MPs legislators? -> "elected to represent York in the lower house of the parliament" I find all this talk about legislators and legislature is confusing unless the term is first defined as the article does not oppose the legislature to the executive and the judicial. What were the MPs really called at the time?
    • As far as I know, people elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada did not have official titles like "MP" or "MLA". The sources refer to the position as a "legislator" or a "Parliamentarian"; for consistency's sake, I kept with legislator. I don't think I need to define what a legislator is because it is a common enough word. Also, the executive council (the equivalent of today's Canadian Senate) did not legislate that much, as their role was more of an advisory board to the lieutenant-general at the time (and the council consisted of around 7-10 men). Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The two parts of the sentence are quite unrelated. Perhaps split.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "investigated" I would propose "investigated corruption" or "researched corruption" or "researched corruption and abuse".
    • Done.
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The word "aristocratic" is misleading. Ver few members the Family Compact were noble. It seems that most of them were members of the parliament's upper house (the legislative Council) which was not elected but appointed (by whom?).
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "he called", he was not the only one and did not invent the term, perhaps use passive voice "was called".
    • Mackenzie did not invent the term, but he did popularise it. He produced the first list in 1833 of Family Compact members that historians use to identify members of this group. I want to avoid the passive voice in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "expelled many times" A quick look at the text of the body seems to suggest it was five times.
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "expelled after" -> "expelled for"
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "which caused" -> "causing"
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. I find "chosen as its first mayor" a bit vague. I suppose he was elected. You do not seem to say until when he stayed mayor.
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "and became" seems to link two quite unrelated events. I hope it was not the loss of his seat that pushed him to revolt. I suggest to split. More details should be given here. The revolt is quite essential in the article and in his life. The five first sentences of the 2nd paragraph are all of the structure A and B. It is often recommended that two sentences that follow each other should differ in structure so that they do not echo each other but vary.
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "getting disillusioned" seems not entirely right. He did not seem to harbour many illusions since quite a while and this is not enough to explain his drastic reaction.
    • Before his 1836 election loss Mackenzie thought he could enact change within the government structure. After his 1836 election loss, he thought change to the government structure was only possible with a revolt. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. "He was imprisoned" -> "In the United States he was imprisoned".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "After becoming" there seems to be no logical relation between having become an American citizen and being pardoned in Canada. I suggest two separate sentences.
    • Removed info about becoming an American citizen.
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "amnesty from the Canadian legislature" -> "amnesty from the parliament of the Province of Canada, which had been formed by the union of upper and lower Canada in 1841" or something like this. I am not an expert on Canadian history but the jump from "Upper Canada" to "Canada" is confusing and needs to be shortly explained. Especially since the new constitution brought some improvements for which WLM had fought.
  • 2nd paragraph, 6th sentence. I suppose he was elected again.
    • Technically, yes, but in the 1830s Mackenzie represented a constituency in York in the Upper Canadian legislature, while in the 1850s he represented Haldimand County in the Province of Canada legislature. The differences are so varied that I am hesitant to use the word "again". Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. I think we do not need to know from when on his health deteriorated and do not need to be told he died, at least not in the lede. Simply omit.
  • 3rd paragraph. 1st sentence. Obituaries should be discussed in the body only.
    • In a previous review, an editor liked this addition because it gave information on Mackenzie's reputation while he was alive (and shortly after his death). Obituaries were written by various newspapers independently of Mackenzie and his family, were not necessarily kind in describing his reputation and provide a great snapshot of his reputation and legacy. I think it should stay in the new lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. He seems to have been sometimes independent and sometimes aligned with the Reform movement (Upper Canada) (link). Perhaps I do not understand. Could it be clarified?
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. legislator" -> "politician" or "MP"
    • Changed to "politician"
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "misguided patriotism" is a label stuck on him that should be explained. I suppose one might also argue Hitler acted by misguided patriotism.
    • Removed
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "sought to remove corruption from government institutions" -> "fought corruption"
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. The problem of being independent and aligned at the same time also applies to his newspapers.
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "opposed any special status and benefits for religious institutions, particularly acres of land " -> "opposed religious discrimination, especially advantages granted by the government to the Anglican church such as land ".
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. "monopolies" -> "economic monopolies". Monopolies and buying land are unrelated and should not appear in the same sentence. Split the sentence.
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. Why "land parcels" rather than just "land"? or should it be "agricultural land" or "farms" or is it the land one needed to own to become a voter"?
  • 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence. Omit the fireboat and the use of his name in a much later election are not needed in the lede.
    • Removed.

-- to be continued -- Johannes Schade (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background, early years in Scotland, and education
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "née Chalmers". You are mistaken here. His mother was widow Chalmers, née Mackenzie, when she married his father.
    • Fixed. Added that Elizabeth was a widow before her marriage to Daniel.
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. Please add something after Alyth like "NW of Dundee" so that the reader must not look up Alyth to learn it is nearby, not in New Zealand.
    • Added "Alyth, Scotland"
  • 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence. Perhaps add "moved to southern England." The end of the sentence seems to preempt what is described in the next section. Avoid repetition.
    • Added. I removed the sentence about abstaining upon his move to Upper Canada.
Early years in Canada
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. Perhaps drop the end of the sentence about the drug. It is confusing as it is written now and would probably take up too much space if explained properly.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "Dundas, Ontario" -> "Dundas, Upper Canada"; "branch manager" -> "manager"
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "immigrated" -> "joined him in" or "joined him by immigrating"
Creation of the Colonial Advocate
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "Queenston"-> "Queenston, near the Niagara Falls,". Whenever introducing a new place name whose location is not self-evident add a short location description. Briefly explain Brock "hero of the British–American War of 1812" or similar. Make it clear that Mackenzie did not build the monument but somewhat sneakishly profited from the occasion.
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Shortly introduce Macaulay. "Somebody linked to the Family Compact?
    • Done
Types riot
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "into the bay". No bay has been mentioned so far; either explain or change to "Lake Ontario" or similar.
    • The sources continuously state the type was thrown into the bay that was across the street from Mackenzie's home/office. I can't verify if the bay was Lake Ontario.
Election to the Legislative Assembly
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Since you call it the legislative assembly, perhaps we should use "Members of the Legislative Assembly" or MLA for short. That would be better than legislator. The members of the upper house are also legislators. According to the articles 10th Parliament of Upper Canada and 11th Parliament of Upper Canada, there were two constituencies with York in their name: "York" (or York County) and "York (town)" (or Your Town). His was York County. Please make sure there is no confusion. I feel never say just York when you mean the county seat. Clarify this also in the lede where you say just "York". At the times of the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada, the 13th Parliament of Upper Canada, the 1st Parliament of the Province of Canada, and the 2nd Parliament of the Province of Canada, we find four constituencies called York numbered 1 to 4. Mackenzie sat for "2nd York" in the 12th parliament but lost his seat in the election held for the 13th. This is cumbersome but the article has to be exact.
    • I can't verify that they were called MLAs. Sources use various generalised terms to describe elected officials in Upper Canada at this time. I changed "York" to "York County" in the lede. Added info about 2nd Riding of York, Mackenzie's new electoral district. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "York" -> "York County".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "legislator" -> MLA or whatever you prefer.
    • Gonna keep it as legislator as that is how sources described him.
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Explain "Executive council" or just say "government".
    • Reworded the sentence to explain what the executive council is.
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "lost their majority". This is a major change that merits a break and an explanation Why? Probably even start a new paragraph. I think the reason was that a new Lieutenant-governor had come into office.
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "an agricultural society" "St. Andrew's Presbyterial". Two unrelated issues thrown together in one sentence: split. The 1st is not understandable at all. For the second the reader must interrupt and read another article, but your article should be readable and understandable without interruption. Either expand or delete.
    • Deleted
  • 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. Did he meet one of the better known reform leaders of Lower Canada? If yes, give a name and a link. Profit from Wikipedia's special abilities.
Expulsions, re-elections, and appeal to the Colonial Office
  • 4th paragraph, penultimate sentence. "by acclamation" sounds very odd. Is it what you called "by voice" before?
  • 4th paragraph, last sentence. "not permitted" If he had been elected, how can he be not permitted. Not understandable.
Municipal politics
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. "delayed collecting" and "equitable assessment". Not understandable. What has his salary to do with equitable assessment laws and what are the latter? Or if it applies: do not throw unrelated issues together in one sentence.
    • Another editor was confused by this, and the source doesn't explain what equitable assessment laws Mackenzie was protesting, so I have removed the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Provincial politics
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. I have lost count of the elections and which ones he won and which ones he lost. I would say it would be easier for the reader if you would each time link to the article about the election. Of course you have to explain that the two constituencies York town and York Country have been reorganised into 4 constituencies.
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "first corresponding secretary". What is that? Is it a secretary who handles correspondence? Perhaps drop the title (if it is one) and just say he collaborated in this Alliance or similar. Besides, Gates just says "corresponding secretary" without the "first".
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph. Why did he lose the election?
    • Added, "Bond Head's campaigning was successful and Reformers across the province lost their elections,"
Planning

General remarks - Head was of course appointed by the British government, but he was supported by the parliament. The reformers had lost the election. How could WLM justify a rebellion against a democratically elected government? Or was it not democratic? –because only landowners voted (which percentage of the population?) or because of electoral fraud? Probably some more discussion needs to be added to this section to make us understand. Insert a sentence indicating when serious fighting first broke out in Lower Canada.

  • Head wasn't "supported by Parliament" the way a Lieutenant-Governor or Governor-General is supported by the Canadian Parliament today. The Canadian Parliament was not consulted before an LG was appointed and the LG could only be removed by the British government. The legislature had many fights with the LG both before and during Head's appointment. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added information about British government's rejection of political reforms in the colony. There's already information about Mackenzie calling Bond Head corrupt in the planning section. I added Mackenzie's promotion of self-government in Upper Canada. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added info about Lower Canada Rebellion, citing them as a reason why Upper Canada troops were not in the colony during the rebellion.
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "organised a meeting with reformers dubbed the Committee of Vigilance" -> "met reformers organised in organised in" (?)
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "Lower Canada": perhaps help the reader by adding "roughly today's southern Quebec" or similar? The (perhaps not very reliable) biography at https://biography.yourdictionary.com/william-lyon-mackenzie maintains that he met Louis-Joseph Papineau. If this can be substantiated, mention and link.
    • Biograhpy.com is not a high-quality reliable source so I can't use it in this article. Although Mackenzie corresponded with Papineau, he was also met with and corresponded with lots of Patriotes. It's not an important detail in Mackenzie's biography as nothing really came from it. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "asking Mackenzie" -> "asking him". The citation refers to a part of Kilbourn's book that is not part of the preview. If you have the book, could you give a quotation? Does it say who sent the message? Could a reason be given?
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Introduce John Rolph, perhaps calling him "moderate reformer"; disambiguate John Rolph -> John Rolph (politician); similar with Thomas David Morrison
    • Source doesn't support that Rolph is a moderate reformer on that page, so I just called both Rolph and Morrison "two other reform leaders". Rolph's wikilink already points to "John Rolph (politician)" Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph,3rd sentence. Garbled.
Rebellion and retreat to the United States

General remarks - in 1838 WLM's supporters Samuel Lount and Peter Mathews were hanged for the rebellion. I think that is worthwhile mentioning.

  • Mackenzie was in America during the trial and execution and thus was not part of these events. I don't think I can include it here without going off-topic.
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "troops" -> "men" I think they did not really have an army. We also need an approximate number 10s 100s 1000s of men?
    • Sources don't say how many men arrived. Changed troops to men.
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence Anderson's "murder" is not understandable. It is better explained in John Powell. Expand with text from there.
    • I reworded the sentence. I don't want to get into a long explanation of the scouting expedition because the article is already very long. I think the new text sums up the important information by saying, "Later that night the leader of the rebellion, Anthony Anderson, was killed by John Powell during a scouting expedition."
  • 3rd paragraph,
Attempted invasion from the United States
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. Link Van Rensselaer. Explain that it is a very rich and influential family.
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence "coordinate a resistance with the patriots" not understandable; "together with"? "from Lower Canada"?
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. "defeated in mainland America" by whom?
    • Clarified
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Probably worthwhile briefly mention Caroline here as it is referred to further down.
    • Added a sentence
Support for Patriots and Mackenzie's Gazette
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "May 12" -> "May 12, 1838"
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. Link Rochester, New York. I did not know where is was.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "land speculators" does this refer to the Rensselaers? not understandable for the general reader.
    • No. Removed info about land speculators
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. Was Mackenzie's Gazette a success? - more to come Johannes Schade (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality law trial

1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "stating that Upper Canada in a civil war" -> "stating that Upper Canada was in a civil war"(?) I'am not so sure what you mean.

Imprisonment

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. John Montgomery (tavern-keeper) should be introduced before, probably when his tavern is first mentioned.

2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. An odd list of two towns and two states "in Rochester, Albany, Michigan, and Ohio" -> "in northern New York State (Rochester and Albany), Michigan, and Ohio"

2nd paragraph, 9th sentence. "Democrats informed him" -> "fellow Democrats pointed out to him".

After the pardon

Too many actions, events and people are mentioned and most is not explained.

1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "all invasions" -> "all invasions into Canada"(?) what is meant? did he abandon and regret what he had done?

Amnesty and return to Canada

This does not explain in an understandable way why the Canada government gave an amnesty, nor do I understand what the Irish problem was. The late 1840's were the time of the Irish Famine that provoked a massive emigration from Ireland to the United states. It was also the time of Daniel O'Connell's Catholic emancipation. But I do not see how the Irish situation would have caused the amnesty in Canada. I think the amnesty was part of a British liberal Whig policy implementing the recommendations of the Durham Report and introduction of a responsible government after the 1840 constitution of the Act of Union 1840. Responsible government was of course one of the things the reformers like WLM had asked for.

  • I added more information on why Lord Elgin wanted to grant amnesty. Sources do not support that Mackenzie received amnesty because of responsible government or the Durham Report. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st & only paragraph, 1st sentence. The report was written in 1839. "After the Upper Canada Rebellion British colonial officials sent" -> "After the Upper-Canada Rebellion British colonial officials had sent"

Return to the Legislature

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. It is not necessary to say "to replace Thompson". You already said that Thompson was dead. We would be more interested to hear who was the candidate he defeated and how he could achieve this. What was the policy he advocated?

  • Removed. He didn't really advocate a policy, rather he claimed his opponent, George Brown, would be beholden to the government. This is added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add something about the progress made in Canada during his absence in democratisation of the government by introducing responsible government

-more to come - Johannes Schade (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure, yes, not directly, but indirectly as the Durham report was commissioned in reaction to the uprising he led. Also the advent of responsible government impacted on him. So I think some content about the Durham report and the introduction of responsible government would not be off-topic.
      • I added a wikilink to the Durham Report. Unfortunately, the article is already quite long so I'm hesitant to include information that does not immediately pertain to Mackenzie's biography. Also, the advent of responsible government (and historians debate if responsible government was enacted at this time) didn't really impact Mackenzie. Mackenzie's version of responsible government wasn't enacted so he kept ranting against the government, which is outlined later. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Should "Reformers"? be upper-cased? I am quite confused about recent trends in English to use upper case less frequently. Was there a "Tory Party" in Canada in 1851?

  • Yes, because Reformers is a proper noun in this sentence. There weren't political parties in the 1800s like we have today and it is usually more accurate to call them "political factions." Nevertheless, there was never an official "Tory Party" or "Tory faction" but members of the Conservative Party were/are colloquially referred to as a "Tory" or "Tories". Sources continuously refer to this group/faction as the Tories (and rarely as Conservatives) so I tried to use "Tory" in this article. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "legislature" -> "assembly", legislature includes the upper house. I think this was happened in the lower house only. The "Mackenzie proposed an investigation of the Court of Chancery" comes in a bit sudden. Perhaps prepend "He suspected corruption inn the Court of Chancery and proposed ... " to introduce this a bit.

  • First part: done. I added information about why Mackenzie opposed the court (it was expensive, written testimony instead of verbal.) I don't think understanding the court's function is important to understanding Mackenzie's opposition, and Mackenzie's biographers don't explain what the court is, either. I don't want to give undue weight to something Mackenzie's biographers don't think is important. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph, 6th sentence. "Baldwin resigned from the ministry" no ministry has been mentioned before. I am not sure what office Baldwin held at the time, perhaps simply "government". First mention of "Canada West". I would add "the new name of the old Upper Canada".

  • Done

1st paragraph, 7th sentence. 2nd paragraph - no remarks 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "5th parliament". It would be nice to give the year (1854) here in addition.

4th paragraph, last sentence "for each colony" confusing as as there was now one one colony called Canada consisting of Canada-West and Canada-East.

5th paragraph - no remarks.

Later life and death

1st paragraph - no remarks. 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "buried ... with a twelve-foot " split in two sentences.

  • Split

2nd paragraph, last sentence. "a woman who married a descendant of Mackenzie named Wanda Gzowski". A lesbian marriage? -> "a woman named Wanda Gzowski who married a descendant of Mackenzie". However, what is her relevance?

Writing style

1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "The topics of Mackenzie's articles were not consistent or linked between issues." Should they have been? Do you mean he changed his opinion too often? Is this a matter of writing style? Anyway, the sentence does not work well as the first sentence of a section, where the reader would expect some kind of an introduction to the subject. Perhaps "improvised" "unstructured" "unorganised" might be helpful.

  • Typically an author's columns would write about a theme and follow-up on previous articles, but Mackenzie's articles jumped around from topic to topic. Yes, he changed his opinion often, as described later in the article. I removed the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Political philosophy

1st-3rd paragraph - no comments 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence. "elected lawmakers" -> "made its own laws" (?)

Religious views
  • 1st paragraph - no comments
  • 2nd paragraph; 1st sentence. "sects" sounds very negative. Propose "denominations".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "Indigenous" -> "indigenous". No reason for upper-casing the word.
  • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. "State of Upper Canada constitution", first mention. Should have been mentioned somewhere before probably when he wrote the declaration of independence.
  • Added info in the "Attempted invasion from the United States" section about Mackenzie's draft constitution. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Economic policies
  • 1st paragraph - no comments
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "a requirement for three-fourths of Parliament" -> "a requirement for a three-fourths majority in the assembly" (?)
    • Changed to "three-fourths of members in Parliament"
Historical reputation
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. "his previous biography" Lindsey's?
    • Yes. Clarified
Depictions and in memoriam
  • 1st paragraph - no comments
  • 2nd paragraph - no comments

Johannes Schade (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade I replied on to your points above. I look forward to your additional comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Dear Z1720, in general you are to be congratulated on the attention you paid to the referencing, which you give in plenty and present in a neat and consistent form. But please note the following:

  • The Dictionary of Canadian Biography should be cited with "Sfn" and "Cite encyclopedia" just like most other such sources are handled, not as <ref name="Biographi">{{Cite web ... }}</ref>. This website does not give page numbers, which are helpful when citing. Therefore please use Sfn and the following entry in the source list: Armstrong, Frederick H.; Stagg, Ronald J. (1976). "Mackenzie". In Brown, George W.; Hayne, David M.; Halfpenny, Francess G. (eds.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Vol. 9. Toronto: Toronto University Press. pp. 496–510. ISBN 0-8020-3319-9. (please check it, it is a mouthful). Johannes Schade (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done

Johannes Schade Comments above have been addressed, ready for more when you are! Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Z1720, please cite The Firebrand at Internet Archive rather than at Google Books, as Google gives a preview, which is incomplete and notably excludes some of the cited pages, whereas Archive allows you to read the whole book. Therefore:

That might be it for me. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Z1720. Indeed, you cite Kilbourn's Firebrand 66 times. However, I feel that at the level of FA, you should not refuse to implement a possible improvement because it would be too much work. I would be afraid that the voting reviewers would throw in an "Oppose" just for such an attitude. They always stress FAs are the best of Wikipedia. Please cite the Firebrand's Google Books digitisation. I went through these 66 citations and I failed to find any that refer to what you call the Preamble (I think you mean Stagg's General Introduction, pages 9–16 of the Google digitisation). I feel going through your text like this might induce you to revise and improve it and would help Nikkimaria for her spot checks.

I assume when you say above, "Please cite the Firebrand's Google Books digitisation." That you mean "Please cite the archive.org digitisation." Archive.org is now the link that the citations point to. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks about the revised lede:

  • Lede, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "first newspaper 1824 called Colonial Advocate and wrote" -> "first newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, in 1824 and wrote".
    • I think that would ruin the flow, as I would have to add a comma after "in 1824", which would be too many commas
      • I mean "He published his first newspaper in 1824 called Colonial Advocate and wrote articles that supported the policy proposals of the Upper Canadian political Reform movement." -> "He published his first newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, in 1824 and wrote articles that supported the policy proposals of the Upper Canadian political Reform movement." No comma is needed after in 1824 as the part after the "and" would not be able to stand alone as a sentence. But this is you article not mine.
  • Lede, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "He was elected a legislator from York County to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada and" -> "He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada by the York County constituency and". I still find this word "legislator" disturbing for the modern reader.
    • Changed to, "In 1827 he was elected as a York County representative to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada."
      • This also sounds funny to the modern reader as he would expect "as the York County representative" thinking that a constituency elects one MP. I believe Youk Counted elected two MP and you should therefore say "as one of the two York County representatives".
  • Lede, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "and other elite members of Upper Canada, which he called the Family Compact" -> "and by the so-called Family Compact, a clique of influential citizens".
    • "So-called" is considered "a word to watch" MOS:ACCUSED. The Family Compact is used by historians to define this group, so they are not "so-called" anymore. This group was the elite members of Upper Canadian society as they held the highest amount of political and financial power of Upper Canada. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine about the "so-called", I was hesitant to use it. Better not. This sentence contains the first mention of the term "Family Compact" and might be taken by the reader as a definition or explanation of this term. It is not clear whether the "which" pertains to to all that is before or only the part after "and other". I was trying to give a clearer explanation of the term using the word "clique".
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "He lost his reelection for the Legislative Assembly in 1836". This is a critical point in his life and (in my opinion) a weak point in this article that should probably be more researched and better explained in the lede just like in the body of the text.
    • I added some information on why Mackenzie lost. I am not sure what information you think is missing from this section. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say "He lost ... after" Strictly speaking "after" is temporal and does not imply a causal relationship. But even if you had used "because", the suite, i.e. "campaigned against reform politicians" does not explain why WLM lost. Head must have had some good arguments or support from influential groups. I hoped you would know what gave him such leverage.
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "could only happen after a rebellion" -> "could only be obtained by a revolution". When you lose, you are a rebel, but when you win you are a revolutionary. He believed he could win. He lived in a time of revolutions. There was the 1830 July Revolution in France, the Revolutions of 1848 in many European countries.
    • Changed to "provoked an armed conflict" to avoid the rebellion vs revolution debate. I also think "armed conflict" better describes Mackenzie's beliefs at this time.
      • I still believe revolution would have been the right word, but this is your article.
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "farmers in town" is awkward as farmers are usually found in the countryside.
    • Changed to "farmers in the area"
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. "He organised American troops to invade" -> "He organised American support to invade". American troops is misleading the naïve reader who might believe the American army intervened in Canada.
    • Done
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence. "Mackenzie was arrested for violating this law and sentenced" -> "Mackenzie was arrested and sentenced".
    • Done
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "ventures failed due to a lack of subscribers." -> "ventures failed.". This "due to ..." does not really explain anything.
    • Done
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "During his work at the New York custom house, he copied ..." The sentence states undigested facts that do not help to understand WLM's life and relevance. Please, think about it and reformulate.
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "While Mackenzie was living in the United States, the Province of Canada was created from the merger of Upper and Lower Canada." This is an easy fact to state, but the merger is less important than the steps taken towards a responsible government, which brought in the much more liberal Baldwin-Lafontaine government and made the amnesty possible.
    • The Rebellion and the Durham Report did not bring about responsible government in Canada; it would take another 10 years for responsible government to be implemented with the Baldwin-Lafontaine government. While steps were taken towards responsible government with the Durham Report, Mackenzie had no part in this implementation. Sources verify that Mackenzie delayed the implementation of responsible government. Since this is a biography of Mackenzie and not an evaluation of the effects of the 1837 Canadian rebellions, it would be off-topic to describe the link between the rebellion and the B-L government. This is more appropriate for articles about the Durham Report or the B-L administration. I am happy to hear others' thoughts on this, too. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree Mackenzie had not direct part in this but he would not have been pardoned without it.
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. I feel we need a year for the Amnesty Act or for his return to Canada.
    • Done
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, last sentence. "His health deteriorated in 1861 and he died on August 28." I still feel a better final sentence should be found. We definitely do not need to be told in the lede when his health deteriorated, but we need some kind of a one-sentence-conclusion stressing his legacy as a hero of the Canadians' fight for democracy and decolonisation. The precise date of his death is already given in his lifespan.
    • I think it's important to say when and how he died, even if it is given at the beginning of the lede. I will let others weigh in on this. Added, "Mackenzie was successful in criticising government officials but struggled to implement his ideal political reforms. He is considered the best-known Reformer of the early-1800s." Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- more to come - Johannes Schade (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more as promised.

Background, early years in Scotland, and education
  • 1st paragraph. "His mother Elizabeth" -> "His mother, Elizabeth" added comma
    • The comma is after the (nee Mackenzie)
      • The punctuation of this sentence is "His mother, Elizabeth Chambers (née Mackenzie), a weaver and goat herder, was orphaned at a young age and a widow." The main sentence is "His mother was orphaned ..." then there are two appositions (or parenthetic expressions) separated by commas, the first "Elizabeth Chambers (née Mackenzie)", and the second "a weaver and goat herder" which must appear between commas. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the sentence as it stands. I have added a missing comma later in the section. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, could I suggest that reviewers add === === to the sections they are editing as we do in articles? It makes adding notes to reviews significantly easier.) Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2nd paragraph. Remove "Calvinist" as the Presbyterians are Calvinists.
  • 2nd paragraph. "In 1810 ... possibly " He was 15 is that not a bit early for writing in a newspaper? Is that covered by the citation? Sewell is inaccessible.
    • Source does not verify the 1810 date (but it does verify that he was younger than 15 when he started using the reading room). Instead, I used a Kilbourn reference to talk about Mackenzie's use of the reading room and removed speculation that he wrote for the newspaper (as we should probably avoid speculation) Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph. "Mackenzie paid" if he had an employment at this time, and earned money it may be worth mentioning. If you mean his mother paid, say so.
  • The source doesn't verify who paid the fine so I made the wording more ambiguous.
  • 3rd paragraph. "He spent his money on lavish fashion in Paris" did you mean "in"? Otherwise your statement is quite far from what the citation supports.
  • 3rd paragraph "his wealth". I doubt he had any?
Early years in Canada
  • 2nd paragraph. "his mother and son James" -> "his mother and his son James"
    • Done
Creation of the Colonial Advocate
  • 1st paragraph. "Upper Canadian Reform Movement" First mention outside of the lede. Link.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph. "He organised ..." is surprising for the reader who has probably never heard of Brock and the war of 1812. Especially after talking about the Reform movement, where on might expect something he did for this movement. Please insert some short sentence that introduces Brock.
    • I already have, "a British major-general who died in the War of 1812." I think more information would be off-topic, as Mackenzie was not in Upper Canada at this time. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Z1720, yes, you do but it comes too late in the sentence. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a little confused. Brock was not involved in the Reform movement. I explain who Brock is right after I introduce him, so I don't know how I can include this information earlier in the article. Including information about the War of 1812 in Mackenzie's article would be extremely off-topic because he had nothing to do with the North American War (as he was in Scotland at the time). Brock was also not part of the Reform movement, nor any political movement. I am not sure what information about Brock is required here to further understand Mackenzie's biography. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Types Riot
  • 1st paragraph. "rioters retaliated to these articles by attacking" -> "rioters retaliated by attacking" is clear enough.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph. "the letters a printing press uses to print documents, into Toronto Bay" -> "the letters a printing press uses, into Toronto Bay". Clear enough. Congratulations for having found the Toronto Bay!
Election to the Legislative Assembly
  • 1st paragraph. "Mackenzie announced his candidacy for the 10th Parliament of Upper Canada in December 1827 to become one of two legislators representing York County" -> "In December 1827, Mackenzie announced his candidacy to become one of the two representatives for the York County constituency in the 10th Parliament of Upper Canada."
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph. "as had been done" -> "as was done"
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph. "He published weekly articles in his newspaper called The Parliament Black Book for Upper Canada, or Official Corruption and Hypocrisy Unmasked where he listed accusations of wrongdoing by his opponents" -> "He published weekly articles in his newspaper under the title "The Parliament Black Book for Upper Canada, or Official Corruption and Hypocrisy Unmasked" where he listed accusations of wrongdoing by his opponents." The italics in titles are for major works not for titles of newspaper articles MOS:ITALICTITLE
    • Done

2nd paragraph. "As legislator "-> "In parliament "."

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "and recommended that local officials obtain control of postal rates." -> "and recommended that local officials should determine local postal rates."

  • Done

2nd paragraph "banking and currency process" -> "banking and currency regulations"

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "the investigation of the Church of England's power." -> "the Church of England's power." You already have looking at in the sentence.

  • Done

3rd paragraph. "In the 1830 election, he" -> "In the 1830, at the election for the 11th Parliament of Upper Canada, he" If you separate the 1830 from the 11th Parliament in separate sentences it is not clear for the reader that this is the same election.

3rd paragraph. "because they struggled to pass new legislation" probably better past perfect "because they had struggled to pass new legislation" but beyond the change in tense it need to be better explained. A modern reader would expect that for a party that has the majority in parliament it would be easy to pass the laws they want.

  • Added a line on why Reformers struggled to pass legislation.

4th paragraph. "between each province's reform leaders " -> "between the reform leaders of the two provinces "

  • Done
Expulsions, re-elections, and appeal to the Colonial Office

1st paragraph. "subsequent by-election" -> "resulting by-election". or explain in more detail that his expulsion resulted in a by-election where he was expected to be replace, but he won that election.

1st paragraph. "legislators" -> "assemblymen". Perhaps this words suits quite well here.

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "Mackenzie's expulsion barred him" -> "his expulsion barred Mackenzie"

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "In Hamilton" -> "In Hamilton"

  • Done

3rd paragraph. " he collected in Upper Canada" -> " he had collected in Upper Canada"

4th paragraph. "During that money he " money???

  • No idea what happened. Fixed.
Municipal politics

1st paragraph. "He won the election on March 27, 1834, with 148 votes, the highest amount" He received 148 votes? or do you mean "by 148" All these numbers of votes are very low. Probably due to the restrictive voting rights. Perhaps you should comment on that somewhere so that the reader can understand. Did WLM not also fight for "one man one vote"?

  • Sewell says, "He secured an astounding 148, by far the highest number of any candidate for alderman." This number makes sense, considering the population of York at the time (5,500ish people, divided by 5 wards, divided by 2 because only men could vote, equals 550 voters per ward. Then you exclude those under 18 and those who did not own property, and those who chose not to vote, and the number of voters drops even more.) Sources do not give much weight to the size of York or who was eligible to vote in the election, so I don't want to give undue weight to explaining this. Mackenzie did not fight for one man one vote (though he did try to make it easier to own property, so more men could be eligible to vote, but that was one of Mackenzie's minor policy positions.) Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the explanation.
Provincial politics

1st paragraph. "For the 1834 provincial election for the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada" -> "In the 1834, at the election for the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada," Keep things in parallel use the same formulation for all these Upper Canada elections. Don't confuse the reader by calling it sometimes provincial and sometimes not.

  • Done

1st paragraph. "York County electoral district, also known as a riding, was split into four with each constituency electing one member" -> "York County constituency, was split into four "ridings" which each elected one member. As I understand it, a constituency that is a county is not called a riding., when it is broken up, the resulting constituencies are called ridings.

  • I think electoral district, constituency, and riding are all synonyms. Riding is Canadian legal jargon and I'm trying to explain what happened while also telling the reader what a riding is. I rephrased it as, "Mackenzie's York County constituency was split into four, with each new constituency (also known as a riding) electing one member."

1st paragraph. "Canadian Alliance Society". This is the first and last mention of this illustrious Alliance in the article. It is of interest as a beginning of a more formal organisation of the Reform movement. If he was secretary, who was the president?

  • Well, it was an attempt for Reformers to become more formally organised, but the organisation died after a few meetings. Their president is unimportant in this biography.

2nd paragraph. "The legislature assigned Mackenzie as chairman " -> "The assembly appointed Mackenzie as chairman "

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "The committee called several members of the Family Compact to answer questions about " -> "The committee interrogated several members of the Family about "

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "Mackenzie's concern on the power " -> "Mackenzie's concern on the excessive power "

  • Done

2nd paragraph "mismanaged money given" -> "mismanaged funds given"

  • Done

2nd paragraph " the salary of officials " -> " the salaries of officials "

  • Done

2nd paragraph. "Mackenzie used the Committee on Grievances to investigate the Welland Canal Company and was appointed one of its directors in 1835". Weird thing why should they have appointed him a director? A pity the reference is inaccessible.

  • Since the company was partly owned by the Upper Canadian government, the legislature appointed directors to its board. I added info to the article explaining this.
    • "in 1835 the legislature appointed Mackenzie." -> "in 1835 the assembly made Mackenzie a director."

2nd paragraph "given to Family Compact members and the Anglican church for low prices" -> "sold to Family Compact members or the Anglican church for low prices"

  • Done

3rd paragraph. "be allied with" -> "side with"

  • Done

3rd paragraph. "defend their British connection" does not sound right. Please find something better "appealed to their loyalty as British subjects"?

  • Changed to "and asked citizens to show loyalty to the British monarch by voting for Tory politicians."

So far bedtime for me. The rest is for tomorrow. Hope you are well. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planning
  • 1st paragraph. "Patriotes" -> "Patriots"
    • Patriotes are the Lower Canadian rebels. Patriots are the American supporters. They are two different groups of people.
      • I understand now but do you think it is understandable for the general reader? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't change the spelling of something that is not verified by the sources. Patriotes are already explained in the "Planning" section. Added info in the "Invasion from US" section about the makeup of Patriot forces. Hopefully the reader will understand the difference in spelling. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph. "Patriotes" -> "Patriots"
    • See above.
  • 3rd paragraph. "Mackenzie discovered that Rolph sent a warning to Mackenzie about the warrant." -> "Mackenzie discovered that Rolph had sent a warning to Mackenzie about the warrant". Use right tense: past perfect for an event that had happened before the time, already in the past, that is considered at that point in the text.
    • Done
Rebellion and retreat to the United States
  • 1st paragraph. "Anthony Anderson". If he was the leader of the rebellion, why is this the first time we hear about him? Should he not have appeared before? Why is there no WP article about him? He probably was not "the leader of the rebellion". Was not Samuel Lount the leader of the rebels at at Montgomery's Tavern? Was Lount absent and Anderson, a lesser figure, stood in for him? Did you forget to tell us that Mackenzie joined Lount's men at the tavern? Please think about it and provide a better description of what happened.
    • Info added in "Planning" about leaders of the rebellion. Info added here about Lount's refusal to lead the rebellion by himself. Anthony Anderson wikilinked. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted invasion from the United States
  • 2nd paragraph. "his father was a successful military general in the War of 1812" -> "his father had been a successful general in the War of 1812". Right tense.
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph. "when their ship was destroyed by British forces in the Caroline affair." -> "when their ship, the Caroline, was destroyed by British forces."
    • Done
Support for Patriots and Mackenzie's Gazette
  • 1st paragraph. "He restarted Mackenzie's Gazette in Rochester on February 23, 1839, but refused to send papers to clients who had not paid for them, as he had done previously with the Colonial Advocate. He hoped clients would pay their subscription fees to continue receiving the paper.[134]" -> "He restarted Mackenzie's Gazette in Rochester on February 23, 1839.[134]" I feel we do not need to know about his strategies with regard to subscribers. Shorten.
    • Done
Neutrality law trial
  • 1st paragraph. "Mackenzie was frustrated and he did not call further witnesses." -> "Mackenzie was frustrated and did not call further witnesses."
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph. "Mackenzie did not appeal the ruling after consulting with lawyers whom he did not publicly name." -> "Mackenzie did not appeal the ruling after consulting with lawyers." Why should we be told that he did not name these lawyers in public. What is the relevance? Shorten.
    • Done
Imprisonment
  • 1st paragraph. "drew an image of the Caroline affair for the cover." -> "drew an image (depicted) of the Caroline affair for the cover." Attract the reader's attention to the given illustration just left of this paragraph.
After the pardon
  • 2nd paragraph. "He co-founded the National Reform Association with the goal of distributing public lands " -> "With George Henry Evans he co-founded the National Reform Association with the goal of distributing American public lands"
  • 3rd paragraph. "made a $12,000" -> "made $12,000".
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph. " This book focused on Van Buren" -> " This book criticised Van Buren"
    • Done
  • 4th paragraph. "After the convention he returned to New York City to work for the Tribune until his resignation in April 1848." -> "He continued to work for the Tribune until his resignation in April 1848."
    • Done
Amnesty and return to Canada
  • 1st paragraph. "and in his Durham Report he recommended merging Upper and Lower Canada into the Province of Canada." As I already said à propos of the lede. It is easy to reduce Durham's recommendations to the union of Upper and Lower Canada, but very unjust. His essential contributions are in the reforms he recommended that put Canada on the way to democratisation and decolonisation. This is a dramatic change of course and climate after Head's authoritarian régime. The reader must be told that the Canada WLM returned to was not the same as the one from which he had fled.
    • I added info about the Durham report, and Mackenzie's limited participation with it. I also explained how the Durham Report's findings led to responsible government with the Baldwin-Lafontaine administration.
  • 1st paragraph. "The passage of this general amnesty bill in the Canadian Legislature allowed Mackenzie to return to Canada" -> "The general amnesty bill, passed in 1849, by the Canadian legislature allowed Mackenzie to return to Canada". We need the year. Perhaps a bit more detail would be nice as well. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/amnesty-act says 1 February 1849. The WP article about Lord Elgin says he pushed for responsible government.
    • Sources don't give the official name of the bill, and they disagree with when the bill actually passed (some say January, some February, some just give a year) so I think it should stay general. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph. "Greely". Who's that?
    • wikilinked
Return to the Legislature
  • 1st paragraph. "campaigned against reformers like Baldwin" -> "campaigned against moderate reformers like Baldwin". I think WLM was considered a "radical".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph. "Mackenzie's Weekly Message which he later renamed the Toronto Weekly Message" -> "Mackenzie's Weekly Message, which he later renamed the Toronto Weekly Message". Insert comma.
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph. "other legislators " -> "his colleagues in the assembly ".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph. " than the previous election" -> " than in the previous election".
    • Done
Later life and death

No remarks

Writing style
  • 1st paragraph. "His writing format was disorganised, with obscure references" -> "His writings often lacked structure and used many obscure references difficul".
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph. "Historian Lillian F. Gates struggled to comprehend The Life and Times of Martin Van Buren because Mackenzie did not describe events chronologically and used too many footnotes and large lists." -|> "Mackenzie's The Life and Times of Martin Van Buren is not an easy read because he did not describe events chronologically and used too many footnotes and large lists." You do not mention Gates because he appears in the citation. I feel we should avoid to name historians in the text unless we quote them in the text or they are very famous (Herodot, Bede, Von Ranke, Macaulay etc.). Please apply this to the whole section.
    • I treated this section like a Reception section; if multiple sources gave an opinion I did not attribute it but if one source gives that statement then I included it. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Political philosophy
  • 1st paragraph. "He changed his stance on policies because he wanted a person's judgement, not predetermined ideas, to decide the best course of action." I find this difficult to understand and the citation does not help because it is Sewell, which is inaccessible. No doubt he often changed his stance, and sometimes with good reasons. That is about all I retain.
    • I reworded it.
  • 2nd paragraph. "after meeting Andrew Jackson in 1829". How can it be that Andrew Jackson has not been mentioned before?
    • It used to be, but it was cut because of the article's length. The meeting is important for Mackenzie's political philosophy but not seen as an important historical event.
  • 2nd paragraph. Try to avoid telling us "Smith said" and "Miller said". Describe his political philosophy based on Smith and Miller.
    • Mackenzie's historians are all over the place with Mackenzie's political philosophy. This is because, as explained in the paragraph before, Mackenzie constantly changed his political beliefs. Since these are individual opinions, which can be contradicted by other sources, it is better to attribute the opinions to the scholars.
Religious views
  • 1st paragraph. "R.A. MacKay said religion was" -> "Religion was". Unless you have reasons to believe that McKay's view is biased or wrong.
    • Reworded to remove the direct quote and attribution.
Economic policies

no remarks.

Historical reputation

no remarks.

Depictions and in memoriam
  • 1st paragraph. "a historical site" -> "a historical monument"
    • Source verifies that it was designated as a historical site and this designation carries legal implications. Wikilinked historical site in the article.
Notable works

Can none of these works be read online? Add URLs if available.

Illustrations
  • The caption of his photo in the Infobox just repeats what is above. I feel no caption is needed here.
    • The caption explains when the photo was taken. I think it's needed. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right. I got confused because the caption looks very much like a lifespan. I would suggest "William Lyon Mackenzie, c. 1851–1861" -> "Mackenzie in about 1855". See e.g. the photo's caption in Lewis Carroll
  • "A portrait of Isabel, Mackenzie's wife, created in 1850" -> "A portrait of Isabel, Mackenzie's wife, painted in 1850"
    • Done
  • "John George Howard's portrait of the third Parliament Building in York, built between 1829 and 1832 at Front Street" -> "John George Howard's painting of the third Parliament Building in York, built between 1829 and 1832 at Front Street"
    • Done
  • "Emanuel Hahn's "Mackenzie Panels" (1938) in the garden of Mackenzie House in Toronto. The panel is dedicated to reformers who argued for responsible government in Upper Canada" This photo is very poor because the strongest contrast occurs in the shadows cast over the plaques. I feel find a better one or delete, but perhaps get another opinion on this.
  • "A proclamation posted on December 7, 1837, offering a reward of one thousand pounds for the capture of William Lyon Mackenzie" -> "Reward of one thousand pounds offered for the capture of William Lyon Mackenzie on December 7, 1837"
    • "A proclamation" describes what the photo is. A good caption describes the photo, per WP:CAPTION. I am open to rewording it if this is unclear. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I though it was a bit long and that "Reward" is the catchword, thus perhaps better: "Reward of £1000 offered for Mackenzie's capture, proclamation of December 7, 1837". What do you think? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I want to start the caption with a noun of what the picture is. The picture is not the reward, it's an announcement of the existence of the reward. I agree it's too long. How about, "A proclamation announcing a reward of £1000 for Mackenzie's arrest."?
  • "The cover image for The Caroline Almanack, depicting the Caroline affair" -> "The cover of the Caroline Almanack, drawn by himself, showing the Caroline burning on the Niagara."
    • I added "drawn by Mackenzie" but I don't think "showing the Caroline..." is succinct.
  • Mackenzie in the 1850s (fine)
  • "The exterior of Mackenzie House. This house was built by the Homestead Fund to support Mackenzie in his retirement." -> "Mackenzie House in Toronto where he died in 1861."

That's it. I think I have done my part. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was originally moved to the talk page article. I moved it to this talk page because I believe this is more in line with the spirit of the request. Also, JS mentions at the top that Nikkimaria asked for the comments to be moved to the talk page, but the request was made by SandyGeorgia. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • I suggest that the lead can be trimmed. Perhaps this is only because I am not Canadian and do not know Canadian history, but I see a lot of facts presented that don't help me understand why I should care ... which I am finally told in the last sentence of the lead.
    • I reformatted the lede so that the first paragraph explains why he is notable. I also tried to trim the lede to remove unnecessary information. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panels or panel ?? Emanuel Hahn's "Mackenzie Panels" (1938) in the garden of Mackenzie House in Toronto. The panel is dedicated to reformers who argued for responsible government in Upper Canada.
    • Should be "panels"; Fixed
  • "Pounds" is used only once in the article ... A proclamation posted on December 7, 1837, offering a reward of one thousand pounds for the capture of William Lyon Mackenzie ... somewhere can British pounds be wikilinked so non-Canadians and non-Brits will understand this is British currency? Also, consistency with commas ... 1000 but 94,340 should be 1,000 ... and a £1000 (equivalent to £94,340 in 2016 ...
    • I changed one thousand pounds to £1,000 since it was the only time in the article that pounds was spelt out. I ctr+f for £ and $ and I think all the numbers have commas, if appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create redirects then? The last name is also spelled McKenzie, MacKenzie or M'Kenzie.[1]
    • Done
  • It is confusing to read first that she was a widow, and then be introduced to the father. It seems that the widow clause could be deleted, as the text goes on to explain the death of his father? His mother, Elizabeth Chambers (née Mackenzie), a weaver and goat herder, was orphaned at a young age and a widow.
    • Elizabeth was married twice; her first husband died, then she met WL's father Daniel, then Daniel died and she was widowed again. Nevertheless, I removed the widow reference since this would be confusing a slightly off-topic for WL's article.
  • Redundancy ... taught ... teachings ... could it be rephrased to something like instructed him in the teachings? She taught Mackenzie the teachings of the Presbyterian church.
    • Done
  • Unclear that Radical should be uppercase? the Dundee Advertiser, a Radical newspaper.
    • I went back to the source and couldn't find the reference a Radical newspaper, so I removed it. I also added info about the number of books he read (it is mentioned in several biographies and helps explain his informal education)
  • It is never stated that MacKenzie married Isabel Reid, but in the next section after she is introduced, there is an image naming her as his wife, but confusingly, MacKenzie emigrates to Canada with someone (his wife, or John Lesslie)? Mackenzie's friend John Lesslie suggested they emigrate to Canada in 1820, ... it would help if we knew whether he married, and with whom he emigrated ...
    • Sources never state that Mackenzie married Isabel Reid (they also don't explicitly state that he didn't marry her, instead they talk about their son being illegitimate.) The portrait is of Isabel Baxter; I added Baxter's last name to the caption to clarify this. I clarified that "the two men" emigrated to Upper Canada, so hopefully that clarifies that Mackenzie came to UC with Lesslie.
  • Oooooh ??? Then later, we are told he married a different Isabel ... this should be sorted earlier on ... I had to get to the third paragraph to figure out that he didn't marry the fist Isabel, he later married another Isabel, so he did emigrate presumably with Lesslie, and not with his wife.
    • See above
  • I don't understand the "would" tense ... The couple wed in Montreal on July 1, 1822,[24] and they would have thirteen children.[17] ... why not ... The couple wed in Montreal on July 1, 1822;[24] they had thirteen children.[17]
    • Done
  • The partnership between the Lesslies and Mackenzie ended in 1823, and Mackenzie moved to Queenston, a town near Niagara Falls in 1824 to open a new general store. ... tangled ... how about ... The partnership between the Lesslies and Mackenzie ended in 1823. Mackenzie moved in 1824 to Queenston, a town near Niagara Falls, to open a new general store.
    • Done
  • He sold the store only a few months after opening it? in 1824 to open a new general store.[24] In May 1824, he sold his store ... how about ... He sold his store after a few months and bought a printing press in May to create the Colonial Advocate, a political newspaper.
    • Yes, verified by the source. I removed that May 1824 reference because, although the first issue was published in May, the source doesn't verify what month he sold the store. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps because I am not Canadian, but I cannot decipher why this story is told or how it relates to the beginning of the paragraph: He organised a ceremony for the start of the construction of the memorial to Isaac Brock, a British major-general who died in the War of 1812. Mackenzie sealed a capsule within the memorial's stonework containing an issue of the Colonial Advocate, the Upper Canada Gazette, some coins, and an inscription he wrote.[27] Lieutenant-Governor Peregrine Maitland ordered the capsule's removal a few days after it was placed in the monument because the Colonial Advocate was critical of the government.[28] ... If the significance of the story is that he was critical of the government, can that be introduced sooner?
    • I added text that the Colonial Advocate was critical of the government. Does this solve this concern, or should this section be removed?
  • Wordiness? Mackenzie sued eight rioters in a civil suit[37] and hired Marshall Spring Bidwell to represent him in the court proceedings.[38] ... how about ... Mackenzie hired Marshall Spring Bidwell to represent him in a civil suit against eight rioters.
    • Done

This is a competent and well researched article, but I find myself getting tangled in wordiness, perhaps because I don't know the significance of certain parts of the story to Canadians ... stopping there for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SandyGeorgia: Comments above. Since I am Canadian, and have been researching Mackenzie for months, I probably assume non-Canadians know things that are common knowledge to me. Please continue to point out places that are confusing or wordy and I will try to clarify them in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/William_Lyon_Mackenzie/archive1&oldid=1030871903"