Talk:Richard Gavin Reid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRichard Gavin Reid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 1, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 19, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
November 15, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Gavin Reid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • WP:LEAD: The lead is merely supposed to summarize the main points of the article. For an article this size, it should only be about two paragraphs.
  • I'm not sure I agree; WP:LEAD says that an article under 15,000 characters should have a lead of one or two paragraphs; this one is ~28.5KB, which is "around 32 kilobytes", the size of article for which the lead should be two or three paragraphs. Technically, I suppose, this one's four, but that's only because I placed the last sentence into its own paragraphs because I thought it popped better that way. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source used for the electoral record? It needs to be cited.
  • The endash needs to be used in the number ranges in the references.
  • Ref 7 needs an accessdate (today's date is fine to use if the link still works).

That's it for now. The article will remain on hold for seven days to address these issues. Nikki311 01:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree with you on the first point. For some reason, when I was looking at the article size, I thought it said ~20.5. Clearly my eyes are going with age. :) Anyway, everything looks good, so pass. Nikki311 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

can some explain how Rennie 108 or Mardon 130 are good referances?? It does not tell me anything about the source or even info on how to fine the book or paper or whatever..... I search Google with Rennie 108 and get 376,000 hits........am i missing something is there a way to find this i dont know about ..at least a isbn # would help. anyone could add anything for a ref like this i am the best ref= Buzz 209.. Am i off base here am i lacking info on how to get reference material because if so i would guess lots have this problem with those funny refs ...........JUST WONDERING,,,Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the names of the authors of the books in which the material is found. A list of the books can be found in the article under "references". It is common in footnotes to refer to books by the last name of the author, with the full details appearing in the bibliography, rather than including the full publication information in each footnote (for example, the Rennie chapter is referenced fourteen times; you can imagine how cumbersome it would be to reproduce the full citation each time). Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
o i see what your trying to do .........made try setting it up with links to the books ...the way it is now leaves people wondering what it is. you will notice here or bellow[1] that the names actually links to the reference or note so people are not left searching aimlessly for info. If your just a reader you have no clue to look at reference to match up notes. Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if you're a reader with any familiarity with academic writing or citation (and being a really terrible student, I have only the most cursory familiarity), you certainly do have such a clue, since this is an extremely common technique. Still, your solution doesn't seem to hurt anything, so I might implement it later if I get a chance. Alternatively, I'd have no objection to your implementing it. Steve Smith (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Bullock 1962, pp. 30–31

refs[edit]

  • Bullock, A. (1962), Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Penguin Books, ISBN 0140135642

Vandalism[edit]

Looks like this page is becoming a target of vandalism. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nature of the beast for mainpage FAs. It'll die down right around midnight UTC. Steve Smith (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"upstart Social Credit League"[edit]

Does "upstart" have a different usage to that I'm aware of? I can't find a wiki-page on it. The only usage I ever understood was "opinionated/disruptive" SGGH ping! 12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One that has risen suddenly. I note that this calls it a noun, but that "upstart+noun" is a very common construction. Steve Smith (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest-serving Premier[edit]

I would like to remove the statement "made him the shortest-serving Premier in Alberta history." This is a dated statement, any incoming premier will have a shorter term, especially the current Premier, Dave Hancock, who has said he won't hold the office for more than six months. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the way this was handled when Redford first took office worked well, and would suggest something similar. Hancock's in an admittedly different situation than Redford, and his pledge should maybe mentioned here. But in general, I think it remains noteworthy that Reid's the shortest-serving premier to have completed his time in office, just has Charles Tupper's analogous distinction doesn't cease to be noteworthy as soon as a new Prime Minister takes office. Frankly, even if Hancock does wind up serving less time, I think it remains relevant that Reid was the shortest-serving non-interim premier, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with me, why did you revert me? 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, I'm happy with the current wording that's in place. Redverton (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Gavin Reid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Gavin Reid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Gavin_Reid&oldid=1208376077"