Talk:Newfoundland referendums, 1948

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newfoundland referendums, 1948 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador, an attempt at building a useful resource on the province and its people. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

	Newfoundland referendums, 1948 has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 30, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

Contents 1 Merge 2 Failed GA 3 GA-review 4 Please check the language

[edit] Merge

Check out Talk:Newfoundland National Convention#Requested merge. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot point, title will probably go with the merge, but should be 'referenda' not referendums. Ex nihil 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Enh, I think that's debatable - "Referenda" is one of those Latin plurals that appears to be on it's way out in Canadian English. I would argue that it's about 50/50 in current usage AshleyMorton 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This is a promising article. It is well-cited, appears to be broad in coverage and NPOV, and uses tagged images with a clear fair use rationale. However, it fails to live up to criterion 1a, that of "compelling prose". Most of the sentences in the article are very short and unvaried in style. Generally, the prose reads a bit too monotonously, as if it was written at an intentionally low reading level.

The background section could also use some expansion, explaining directly what is meant in this context by "local representative government" and "responsible government".

With a bit of improvement in the prose, I'm sure that this article will pass. Please do resubmit it. MLilburne 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA-review

There has been good additions since the failed nomination but all of the points raised in the Failed GA comments above still need work and need to be addressed before promotion. I get the feeling little effort was made to address those comments. All the positive points raised in the last round still hold true.

The sentences are just too punchy.

I also don't think that the issue of what "local representative government" and "responsible government" has been covered.

Minor point but references are best placed after punctuation and should not be placed just before.Peter Rehse 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the references and did a bit of work on the Background section which I thought was the worst with respect to prose. I'll do a bit here and there but I think the original authors need to take a careful look also.Peter Rehse 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't think that representative or responsible government needed any further explanation because this is an encyclopedia, and anything not understood can be looked up very easily. It would probably help if someone other than me looked over this article because I've written most of it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt it did mainly because each form could manifest itself in different ways.Peter Rehse 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I failed it for reasons of prose. Please read the comments in both nominations.Peter Rehse 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind - took me a lttle while but I think I fixed the prose up sufficiantly.Peter Rehse 05:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check the language

The English in this article needs to be checked, the text is filled with errors. At the moment, I find it surprising to see a good article nomination for an article so poorly written. JdeJ 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well actually its borderline and the author could fix it up with a little effort. I put the article Microsoft word grammer check. There were a small number of spelling mistakes but more telling the number of passive sentences was high at 27% as was the correlated Flesch Reading Ease index at 32.4 (the lower the better and I think it should be 2/3 that). The Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level was 12. I failed the article because no effort was made to address the issue.Peter Rehse 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell I did a copyedit using MS-word grammer check and a bit of common sense. I'm going to promote to GA status.Peter Rehse 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)