Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 22:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I can do this review. I'll admit it's been a few years since I've had anything to do with the GAN process, but happy to help out a WikiCup contestant. Give me a couple days and I'll have this done preliminarily. I'm not familiar with Mackenzie at all, but as a politics degree-holder who works in journalism IRL, he looks fascinating! Go Phightins! 22:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lede, in particular, could do a better job contextualising his historical legacy. The last section has some interesting material that could be better incorporated, perhaps instead of a recitation of his views on discrete political issues. On the whole, though, the article is pretty well-written. Comments—most of which you should feel free to take or leave—on the prose are below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Very well-referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   My over-arching comment is that, to a large extent, the article reads more like a list of events than an encyclopedia article that links them together, particularly in the middle sections describing the key years of his political/journalistic career. There is a lot of content delineating every publication he ever started and office he ran for; there is less coverage of what made some of his work successful, some of it not, and what motivated him through all of it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No concerns here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Good.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It is clear that an extraordinary effort has gone into developing this article, as reflected by the comprehensive coverage of key events in his life, impeccable citation/verifiability work, and the overall quality of the writing, which is quite good. My main concern, as I alluded at several points, is that one does not come away from the article with a clear sense of the historical legacy and impact that Mackenzie had on Canadian politics of the era or where he fits into the intellectual and political fabric of his time. My sense is that the literature you have consulted and referenced throughout the article may shed a bit more light on these factors; even if it does not present a single, agreed-upon narrative, I would not hesitate to do a bit of "XYZ scholars suggest ABC, while DEF scholars suggest GHI." You have brought to bear a lot material here; I think the only thing standing between this and satisfying the good article criteria is assembling it into a slightly more coherent narrative. Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense or if you disagree with any of the comments above or below. Really impressive work! Go Phightins! 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

   'Update: I am now comfortable that the article meets all GA criteria and have passed it as such. Per the nominator's desire to pursue the FA process, I may leave a few additional comments on this page in the coming days, but I have listed the article. Go Phightins! 00:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Prose comments

Lede

• Mackenzie's papers aligned with the Reform movement and he wrote editorials that criticised the Upper Canadian government and the Family Compact.
  • Could you use the link to the Canadian reform movement you use later in the article? (Actually, it's probably best if you do that on first reference earlier in the lede rather than to the generic Reform article)

 Done No idea why reform was wikilinked to a generic definition.

• As a general comment, there seems to be quite a bit of passive voice throughout much of the article and the lede, in particular. To the extent that can be minimised, that would be ideal.

 Done I did a readthrough of the lede. I think the passive voice is an attempt to avoid starting every sentence with "He". Hopefully I have the right balance.

Early life

• His mother Elizabeth (née Chambers), a weaver and goat herder, had been orphaned at a young age. Any reason that can't just say "was orphaned"?

 Done

• He passed away a few weeks after Mackenzie was born. Avoid weasel words (i.e. "passed away")

 Done

• She was a deeply religious Calvinist, and Mackenzie learned the teachings of the Presbyterian church. Link Presbyterian Church?

 Done

• At five years old, Mackenzie received a bursary for a parish grammar school in Dundee and later transferred to a Mr Adie's school. What's a Mr Adie's school?

 Removed I have no idea, there isn't a wikilink for it and this school is not referenced in any other source (if it was I would have switched the reference.) I decided to delete it.

The Colonial Advocate and early years in York (1823–27)

• His unnamed second daughter was born in Queenston but died on September 1, 1824. I presume this refers to Mackenzie, but the most recent "he" in the paragraph is someone else. Rephrase?

 Done

• A lot of sentences follow the structure "In XXXXX [time], Y happened." Anything you can do to add a little variety would improve the readability, I think. It struck me particularly in this section.

I will do a couple readthroughs to give variation to the sentences. I'll post here when I think I'm done.

 Done I think many of the "In XXXXX [time], Y happened" sentences have been reworded.

• In 1826, James Buchanan Macaulay accused Mackenzie of improper business transactions and made jokes about Mackenzie's Scottish heritage and his mother. Related to the prior point, most of the time, "In [time]" is not followed by a comma. Here it is. Personally, I prefer it with, but whichever you decide, I think consistency throughout the article is a good policy.

This will also require a couple readthroughs to find all these fixes. I will post when I think I'm done.

 Done I think I found them all.

• Mackenzie hired Marshall Spring Bidwell to represent him in the court proceedings. Is it noteworthy why he switched lawyers?

 DoneIt wasn't a switch, the previous lawyer assisted Bidwell at the trial, but Bidwell was the lead attorney at the trial. I clarified in the article.

• The court awarded Mackenzie £625 (equivalent to £1,008 in 2016) in damages ... this does not seem like it can be accurate based on how much £2,000 was worth in the preceding paragraphs. Could you double check the inflation conversions?

 Done The value was wrong, I fixed it.

• Could you add any context to why his freemason application is relevant? It strikes me as a bit of a random insertion; I am struggling to see how it fits into a broader narrative of his life. If it doesn't, perhaps a bit of the detail could be reduced?

 Removed I was debating its inclusion in the article. Most other historians do not mention this part of his life, or it is a sentence in a 300+ page biography, so I decided to remove it so it doesn't receive undue weight.

Reform member of the Legislative Assembly (1827–1834)

• He believed government corruption forced Randal to sell his property below its value to pay legal fees Randal acquired while trying to defend his property rights. I had to read this sentence a few times to understand the thread here. Mackenzie believed Randal had to sell his property to pay legal fees he incurred while trying to defend his property rights in a corruption scheme? I'm not sure I understand how the property rights relate to government corruption.

 Removed Yeah, this is difficult to summarize. Randal's influence in Mackenzie's campaign is only mentioned in one source, so I decided to remove it.

• Mackenzie ran as an independent and refused to buy alcohol and treats for supporters or bribe citizens to vote for him. Perhaps note that this was the custom of the time?

 Done

• Mackenzie denounced the Legislative Assembly in the Colonial Advocate as a "sycophantic office". Could you help link a little bit more how he came to this conclusion? The previous paragraph/section suggests that he was a fairly involved member of the assembly and then suddenly he is denouncing it. Did these feelings accumulate during the various committee assignments and the like?

 Done He had been critisizing the legislature since the Colonial Advocate was created. I added language to clarify this.

• he was re-elected by acclamation on November 26 How does one get re-elected by acclamation? Acclamation of the assembly? In his constituency?

 Done In his constituency. I added "by his constituents"

Upper Canada politics (1834–1836)

• Mackenzie chose the newly built market buildings as Toronto's city hall and moved the offices of The Advocate into a southern wing of the complex. As a historical note, was he still doing journalism throughout this whole period? Was being in the legislature or the city council a part-time affair? (I assume it was.) A little context somewhere on the balance of his responsibilities might be helpful.

He was still running the Colonial Advocate while he was a legislator. At the beginning of "Reform member of the Legislative Assembly" I added info about still writing in the Colonial Advocate. Do I need additional info for this?

• Mackenzie delayed collecting his mayoral salary of £100 (equivalent to £9,259 in 2016) until April 1836 because he wanted the city council to pass equitable assessment laws. Assessment laws? As in property valuation? A link or some context would be helpful here. I presume this fits into his schtick as a reformer?

It was totally a reformer schtick. The source doesn't clarify what type of assessment laws these were. Should I just remove this sentence?

Maybe just clarify that it was something of a protest over the lack of these equitable assessment laws. It's helpful color; I just wasn't sure if it tied to something broader. Go Phightins!

• Probably only need the Main article: The Reform Movement (Upper Canada) tag once.

 Done Whoops. Removed.

• In 1835, his daughter Margaret (Tottie) was born. I think it would work better if the mentions of his children's births would be tied into the early life section, perhaps refashioned as early life and family. Right now, they just kind of interrupt the narrative about his political career without adding to it. Also, were all these children with the same woman that he got into trouble for not marrying at the outset?

 Removed James was the son of Isabel Reid, who was born in Scotland. He then married Isabel Baxter and they had 13 children together. I also felt that the children were kind of added on in the biography, but I didn't know how to include them. I don't think they are too relevant to Mackenzie's bio (except for James and maybe Joseph Hume Mackenzie) and I will go ahead and remove them. This will prevent a "X was born in YYYY" paragraph in a personal life section, and the 13 children are mentioned in the "Early years in Canada" section.

• When the new lieutenant-governor Francis Bond Head arrived in Upper Canada, Mackenzie believed he was an ally of the reform movement. Meaning the new lieutenant governor was an ally? A little ambiguous.

 Done Reformers like Mackenzie thought Bond Head was going to be their ally. Clarified.

Upper Canada Rebellion (1837–1838)

• Just to flag, the first paragraph here falls into the "In XX [time], Y happened pattern quite a bit. (And, for what it's worth, mostly puts a comma after the introductory phrase)

 Done I did a copyedit to move around the dates.

• His daughter Elizabeth was born in 1837. Same comment as before. Interrupts the thematic narrative.

 Removed

• Generally, a bit more historical context on the rebellion and what motivated Mackenzie would be helpful here. It is implied that this follows his discontent at Mr. Bond Head, but could you make his motivations a bit more explicit? I know there is a link to a related article, which is good, but as someone not familiar with much Canadian history, I feel like there is a bit of assumed knowledge that would help more general readers to explicate. Broadly, this section strikes me as a bit too much blow-by-blow recap and a bit too little historical context / what motivated Mackenzie / what were the effects.

This will take some time to write as there are whole books about what caused the Upper Canada Rebellion. I'll come back to this.

 Done I added some information about Mackenzie's sadness on losing the 1836 election, the vigilance committee's support of self-government and a critique Mackenzie published calling Bond Head a tyrant supporting a corrupt government. Does this shortly explain Mackenzie's motivation to help start the rebellion? Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant! Love it. Go Phightins!

Years in the US (1838–1849)

• In January 1839 he suspended production of Mackenzie's Gazette and his son, William, was born. Are these two events related? I must confess that as this article progresses, it seems to descend a bit more into regurgitation of facts. I wouldn't say they are trivial, but perhaps the secondary source literature constructs a bit more narrative to help hold this part of his life together? Topic sentences of paragraphs strike me as a good opportunity to help make any such connections a bit more explicit.

 Removed removed info about his children, per above comments.

As per your comments on the regurgitation of facts: most of Mackenzie's biographies give 250 pages to pre-rebellion and rebellion events, then give 20 pages to the rest of his life. The main source for his post-rebellion life is a dry (in my opinion), 400 page book that basically regurgitates facts to the sacrifice of narration (again, my opinion). Unfortunately, it looks like the article reflects that writing style. I'll try to construct more narration into the post-rebellion sections, but this will take time.

• He restarted Mackenzie's Gazette in Rochester on February 23, 1839, but refused to send papers to clients who had not paid for them. This is a good example of the prior comment. Respectfully, why should the reader care? Why is this significant? (To be clear, it may well be; that is just not obvious from the framing in the article right now.)

 Added language to clarify why this is important.

• The trial for Mackenzie's violation of American neutrality laws began on June 19, 1839. Link about American neutrality laws? This assumes a bit of prior knowledge on the part of the reader that seems a bit too specific.

Neutrality Act of 1794 is wikilinked in the lede. Should I also wikilink it here?

I don't know if there's a policy about this, but my preference is that something can be linked once in the lede and then on the first reference in the body, particularly if it's pretty far down the article. Go Phightins!

• The judge sentenced Mackenzie to eighteen months in jail and a $10 (equivalent to $241 in 2019) fine. This is, admittedly, a pedantic quibble, but any reason this value is shown in 2019 dollars and the others are shown in reference to 2016 pounds. Could we pick one year or the other?

The inflation amount and year are provided by the {{inflation}} template. Those numbers and years will be updated as the template is updated.

• He agreed to do so on May 10, 1840, after petitions were submitted to Congress and Democrats informed Van Buren that he needed Mackenzie's supporters to vote for him in the 1840 United States presidential election. This raises an interesting point that he had American supporters. I wonder if you could expand on that a bit?

I never found a good explanation about this, but I assume his American supporters are the people subscribing to his paper. I'm going to look back at a source and try to find info about this.

 Done I added info about Mackenzie's supporters from his newspaper, how many signed petitions for his release and where people signed petitions. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Return to Canada (1849–1858)

• York County and the provincial government accepted his claim for income he did not receive in the 1830s as a public servant and Welland Canal Company commissioner. Meaning they gave him back pay?

Yeah, it's back pay. He had to petition (and I think sue?) the government to get this money. Should I do something to clarify this?

Eh, I think it's probably clear enough. Go Phightins!

• However, he might have resigned because his constituents told him they would not support his reelection after his opposition to the construction of a rail line in Haldimand. Can you provide any additional context on who speculates that this is why he "might" have resigned? It seems a little bit needlessly opaque to me.

 Removed I went back to the source and he verified that the constituents lobbied Mackenzie for a railway, but he also speculated that they would have supported Mackenzie's reelection even though Mackenzie was against the rail line. I removed the sentence.

Later life and death (1858–1861)

• He collected petitions for the dissolution of the Province of Canada and planned to deliver them to the Colonial Office in England. Whoa—this seems like quite a dramatic evolution to call for dissolution of the Province? That seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur from his whole time in government and his decision to return to Canada post-imprisonment. A bit more on the intellectual or political context would be helpful.

Oh man, this will take some work to summarize. I used to have a whole paragraph in the personal politics section explaining this, but the article got too big so it got deleted. I'm going to have to go back and find this section and see what I can add to the article.

 Done I added a sentence about why Mackenzie did not support the union in 1855. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing style

• Who are all of these people (e.g., Lillian Gates, Frederick Armstrong, etc.) that you cite about his writing? Are they contemporary scholars? His contemporaries?

 Done Most of these people are historians. A previous editor suggested that I remove the "A person says..." style in this section and I decided to do another copyedit right now to reduce the word count in this section and remove lots of similar opinions.

Political philosophy and views

• The second paragraph in this section attributes quite a few views to quite a few people that the article itself never really describes. My impression is that there is no scholarly consensus, which strikes me as a bit odd for a figure of this stature. If that's the case, perhaps you could reflect on why, despite the availability of troves of primary source material (i.e. all these newspapers), there is no consensus and explicate some of the competing views in a few dominant strains of literature? Ultimately, the political philosophy section is a lot of really interesting stuff, but there's no clear thread or explanation for the absence of one.

Many academic papers, cited in this article, try to answer the above question. Basically, his political philosophy is a hatred of the Family Compact and their corruption. I try to explain this in the first paragraph, but it looks like I'm not successful. I will have to read this again and try to add a better explanation.

 Done I did a copyedit of the political philosophy section to remove some of the political references. Some were only mentioned in passing in the source, and others were not necessary to explain his philosophy. It might require a second look.

• Religious views section is good.
• His ideal society contained educated farmers and small business owners served by printing presses. Does this relate to his political philosophy? If so, how? If not, is it evident of the sort of "everything to everyone" vibe that the political philosophy section gives off?

 Done I thought it fit better here because the source is describing the farmers and small business owners and Mackenzie's ideal economic system. I changed to "His ideal economic society"

Legacy

• Again, could we link to who these people commenting on him are or otherwise introduce them somehow?

George Brown and Lindsey are linked earlier in the article, I moved John King's son-in-law description to the first paragraph and I added "historian" next to Albert Schrauwers. Should I re-introduce Brown and Lindsey here?

Maybe just briefly. I read the whole article in one sitting and had forgotten by this point who they were, and I imagine a lot of people will jump to a particular section of interest, so I think it can be helpful to reiterate when possible. Go Phightins!

• The first paragraph here is the most coherent explanation of who Mackenzie the person is in this whole article, I think. I wonder if that could, at minimum, feed into the framing we get in the lede and, ideally, help form some narrative throughout the article (insofar as these reflections are consistent with the scholarly consensus).

 Done Yes, I will work that into the lede. Put in the lede

• Instead, the publishers asked Lindsey and his son to consense his previous biography for its inclusion in the series. Condense?

Lindsey and his son took Lindsey's original biography, cut out a bunch of sections, and reprinted it as part of the series. Is there a better word I can use?

Sorry that was asking whether you meant "condense" instead of what I assumed was a typo of "consense" ... Go Phightins!

 Done Whoops! Did not notice that. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mackenzie did not know how to bring reform to government institutions, causing him to become a "moral crusader". This generalisation seems to come out of nowhere and lack a bit of foundation. But it does broadly seem consistent with the recitation of events that comprises the bulk of the body of the article. In conjunction with the next sentence—His term as mayor was overshadowed by a desire to reform government institutions instead of focusing on the problems of the city.—it's difficult to get a clear picture of what did animate him. Is he a reformer who couldn't achieve reforms? That's the broad impression I get, I think.

Yes. He basically spent his whole life yelling about how everything in the government was wrong, and he screwed up his mayoralty, the one time he was actually in charge of a government.

 Done I changed the first sentence to describe what I think I need to say. The "moral crusador" line is a leftover quote from a different version of this section.

• Not sure this section is long enough to require subsections, but if it is, one of them shouldn't be "legacy" if the macro-section is also called "legacy."

 Done changed the second legacy to "Depictions and in memoriam". Right now it's five paragraphs, which is a bit long for a section. If it gets reduced I might combine it.

Post review comments

Hi Go Phightins! I'm still working on a couple of comments, but most of the above have been addressed (marked with a  Done  Removed or  Added template.) I have questions about some of the points, and please add comments if a comments needs more changes. Thanks again for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Z1720: The improvements have already been great, and I just wanted to comment that the lede, in particular, is terrific. From my perspective, I think this probably meets most if not all of the GA criteria at this point such that's what left is really just more of peer review if you ever had thought of taking it through the FA process (a gauntlet I've only run once myself ...). I'll leave this open for another day or two maybe and then go ahead and list it? If there's anything else you need from me (or if by, say, Friday, I haven't listed it), feel free to ping me again. Great work!! Go Phightins! 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Go Phightins!, yes I will be taking this article to FAC in mid-April after conducting another PR. I would like to keep this GAN open for one or two days to get more feedback, in particular for the "Political philosophy" section. Can you take another look at it (maybe through the lens of an FA) and give more comments? Also, can I ping you when I take this article to FAC for additional feedback and to thank you for your help? Thanks again for your work on this GAN. Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a couple days and I'll have another, more detailed look. Go Phightins! 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had more time in the past few days to comb through this another time. I'm going to go ahead and list it as a GA, and I will try to find some time this week to leave any additional FA-related comments. Nice work on bringing this up to the GA level! Go Phightins! 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's no problem. Thanks for reviewing this and all of your comments. I look forward to your additional feedback. Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)