John Rolph ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article is about an Upper Canadian lawyer, politician doctor, and medical teacher. This figure's career is characterised by moderate Reform stances and constantly switching between a political life and practicing medicine. I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed researching him. Z1720 ( talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Image review
@ Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 ( talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that's it from me. While I did not conduct a formal source review, the sources used all appear to be sufficiently reliable, quick searching doesn't turn up any glaring sourcing ommissions, and I've skimmed through the Patterson source and compared it to the article. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I will review this. Anything useful in https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/onhistory/2022-v114-n2-onhistory07279/1092218ar.pdf by chance? Heartfox ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Best, Heartfox ( talk) 21:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Support. Heartfox ( talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
here to help prevent this getting archived :) starting with the "works cited" section:
i'll be back for more! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
back at this.
i've read through the article several times, and honestly don't have that much to say - the other reviews have covered & resolved quite a lot of prose issues. i did a couple of small copyedits myself, but i was expecting to have more feedback, haha. good work! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Source review - pass – the sources are comprehensive and high-quality. For Read (1982), it appears the title of the book has not been standardized in title case like the rest of the sources. Heartfox ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 01:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Rolph never referred to this event in his life– It's one thing to say his papers don't mention his wedding, but does Godfrey really say that Rolph never mentioned it to anybody ever? That's quite a claim.
easier to obtain, improving public education and ensuring– I saw the article use a serial comma earlier, so you should either remove it from that spot or add it here (my preference), for consistency, per MOS:SERIAL.
oppose reformer policiesshould be capitalized and if any uses of the term in the Political views section should be capitalized. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
In the legislature Rolph– I think a comma is warranted there.
declared all Americans in Upper Canada as citizens– I think "as" should be "to be".
The amended legislation passed without Rolph's support– Can you summarize here the primary difference between Rolph's proposal and this ammended version?
campaign in the constituencyrefer to campaigning to voters? Seems like an odd wording to me, but if it's more common in Canada, than that's appropriate.
I'll add more comments later. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 02:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Having read through the rest of the article:
Rolph agreed to the rebellion under three conditions:– This sentence lacks a serial comma, and I see from your reaction to an earlier comment that you have decided to go all in with serial commas in this article.
His views on the meeting or a rebellion were not published or written down.How do we know everything in the following paragraphs about Rolph's views on the rebellion?
Rolph was granted amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August.– Could be rewritten as "Rolph received amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August of that year."
Park and Rolph's policies– I believe that should be "Park's and Rolph's policies".
Rolph and his allies' suggestions,
incorporating the Upper Canada professionmean?
that would expandto either "that expanded" or "that would have expanded".
teaching medicine where he treatedshould be "teaching medicine in which he treated"
During the 1830s more radicalneeds a comma.
As a doctor, he ... incorporated new ... medical practises into his lectures.The way I'm reading the sentence, the s makes practises a plural noun. Are you reading it as a simple present conjugation of the verb to practise? If I read it that way, the sentence doesn't make sense to me. The verb in that sentence is incorporated, not practise. I am also reading the section header as a noun. Practice/practise doesn't have to be an establishment owned by Rolph to be a noun. I can swing at a golf ball (verb) or have a good golf swing (noun). To make it a verb in the header and still have it make sense, I think it would have to be something like "Practising medicine". (I suppose you could sidestep this back-and-forth by rewording as simply "Medicine" or something like that. In that vein, I suppose you could replace "practices" in the lead with "techniques".)
The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, and later created a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto.Could be "The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, later creating a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto."
opposition member of the government his focusneeds a comma after "government".
Overall
I'm trusting the source review by Heartfox and haven't looked at the sources, but this certainly seems well researched. Earwig didn't find any likely plagiarism. The prose of this article is super easy to read and adheres well to WP:NPOV. The article seems to be comprehensive, leaving no obviously large stretches of Rolph's life uncovered. Nevertheless, I don't see undue weight on any single part of his life. The lead section does a good job of summarizing the article. Those are all my comments for now. I haven't yet looked at the responses to my first batch of comments. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
John Rolph ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article is about an Upper Canadian lawyer, politician doctor, and medical teacher. This figure's career is characterised by moderate Reform stances and constantly switching between a political life and practicing medicine. I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed researching him. Z1720 ( talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Image review
@ Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 ( talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that's it from me. While I did not conduct a formal source review, the sources used all appear to be sufficiently reliable, quick searching doesn't turn up any glaring sourcing ommissions, and I've skimmed through the Patterson source and compared it to the article. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I will review this. Anything useful in https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/onhistory/2022-v114-n2-onhistory07279/1092218ar.pdf by chance? Heartfox ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Best, Heartfox ( talk) 21:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Support. Heartfox ( talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
here to help prevent this getting archived :) starting with the "works cited" section:
i'll be back for more! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
back at this.
i've read through the article several times, and honestly don't have that much to say - the other reviews have covered & resolved quite a lot of prose issues. i did a couple of small copyedits myself, but i was expecting to have more feedback, haha. good work! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Source review - pass – the sources are comprehensive and high-quality. For Read (1982), it appears the title of the book has not been standardized in title case like the rest of the sources. Heartfox ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 01:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Rolph never referred to this event in his life– It's one thing to say his papers don't mention his wedding, but does Godfrey really say that Rolph never mentioned it to anybody ever? That's quite a claim.
easier to obtain, improving public education and ensuring– I saw the article use a serial comma earlier, so you should either remove it from that spot or add it here (my preference), for consistency, per MOS:SERIAL.
oppose reformer policiesshould be capitalized and if any uses of the term in the Political views section should be capitalized. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
In the legislature Rolph– I think a comma is warranted there.
declared all Americans in Upper Canada as citizens– I think "as" should be "to be".
The amended legislation passed without Rolph's support– Can you summarize here the primary difference between Rolph's proposal and this ammended version?
campaign in the constituencyrefer to campaigning to voters? Seems like an odd wording to me, but if it's more common in Canada, than that's appropriate.
I'll add more comments later. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 02:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Having read through the rest of the article:
Rolph agreed to the rebellion under three conditions:– This sentence lacks a serial comma, and I see from your reaction to an earlier comment that you have decided to go all in with serial commas in this article.
His views on the meeting or a rebellion were not published or written down.How do we know everything in the following paragraphs about Rolph's views on the rebellion?
Rolph was granted amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August.– Could be rewritten as "Rolph received amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August of that year."
Park and Rolph's policies– I believe that should be "Park's and Rolph's policies".
Rolph and his allies' suggestions,
incorporating the Upper Canada professionmean?
that would expandto either "that expanded" or "that would have expanded".
teaching medicine where he treatedshould be "teaching medicine in which he treated"
During the 1830s more radicalneeds a comma.
As a doctor, he ... incorporated new ... medical practises into his lectures.The way I'm reading the sentence, the s makes practises a plural noun. Are you reading it as a simple present conjugation of the verb to practise? If I read it that way, the sentence doesn't make sense to me. The verb in that sentence is incorporated, not practise. I am also reading the section header as a noun. Practice/practise doesn't have to be an establishment owned by Rolph to be a noun. I can swing at a golf ball (verb) or have a good golf swing (noun). To make it a verb in the header and still have it make sense, I think it would have to be something like "Practising medicine". (I suppose you could sidestep this back-and-forth by rewording as simply "Medicine" or something like that. In that vein, I suppose you could replace "practices" in the lead with "techniques".)
The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, and later created a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto.Could be "The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, later creating a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto."
opposition member of the government his focusneeds a comma after "government".
Overall
I'm trusting the source review by Heartfox and haven't looked at the sources, but this certainly seems well researched. Earwig didn't find any likely plagiarism. The prose of this article is super easy to read and adheres well to WP:NPOV. The article seems to be comprehensive, leaving no obviously large stretches of Rolph's life uncovered. Nevertheless, I don't see undue weight on any single part of his life. The lead section does a good job of summarizing the article. Those are all my comments for now. I haven't yet looked at the responses to my first batch of comments. Dugan Murphy ( talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)