The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:30, 9 March 2010 [1].

---

Manitoba[edit]

Manitoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Manitoba/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone GA and PR, has been extensively copy-edited (thanks to all those who helped out!), and is (IMHO) ready for FA status. Furthermore, this year is Manitoba's 140th birthday! What better way to celebrate than with a great article honouring the province? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. No dab links. Several links to forces.gc.ca appear to be dead. Alt text present and good, but you may be overdoing it with the alt text for the coat of arms; try looking at the article with images turned off, or check the alt viewer link to the right. Great that you're bringing such an important topic to FAC. Ucucha 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text for arms culled somewhat; I have very little experience with alt text, so would welcome any suggestions. I'm currently working on finding updated links/alternate sources for the CF information, but Internet Archive isn't being very cooperative...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: links have now been fixed. Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Will try to read this later; Why doesn't File:Canada provinces evolution 2.gif seem to have a caption? ceranthor 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but someone seems to have removed the parameter allowing it to be visible. Fixed now. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Though this isn't on the list of FA criteria, the "see also" articles should be basically sound. Manitoba Public Schools Act, List of companies based in Manitoba, List of Manitoba provincial highways, List of cities in Manitoba, History of Manitoba, Climate of Manitoba, List of protected areas of Manitoba and Politics of Manitoba are all either unreferenced or at least seriously under-referenced. Climate of Manitoba is particularly problematic. I don't expect all of these to be featured articles themselves of course, but there's a glaring contrast with the quality of the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...well, I can work on some of those, but there's no way I can improve all of them to a decent level on my own, at least not during this FAC period. Do you consider their quality problematic enough to warrant delinking them from this article? Personally, I believe that even a low-quality article gives more information than no article at all, but I do see where questions of reliability could arise. What would you suggest I do? Delink or not? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Quality of sub-articles; our concern here should be focused on whether this article is comprehensive and the correct hatnotes are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Weak oppose. I found some problems (first half of the article):

1. Carman, Manitoba, reached the extreme of 53.0 with the humidex, which set the highest temperature reached with the humidity in Canada. I do not fully understand this sentence. Please, clarify.
2. Can write more about animals? For instance, about birds?
3. the dens there are home to the largest concentration of snakes in the world. Is it really the largest concentration of snakes in the world? It is unusual for such a cold climate.
4. In 'Confederation' subsection the first paragraph duplicates the third. They should be merged.
5. Land claim issues arose because the proper amount of land promised to the native peoples was not always given. Please, clarify what 'Land claim issues' mean or drop the sentence.
6. Once elected Prime Minister in 1896, Laurier proposed a compromise ... And what? Was this compromise implemented?
7. Does aboriginal population mentioned in 'Demographics' section include metis people?

Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Here are some responses:

1. Tweaked for clarity. The intended meaning was that Carman holds the Canadian record for highest temperature with humidex.
2. Birds and fish added. While I'd prefer to keep this section rather short, any other suggestions are welcome.
3. As far as I know, yes. The snakes hibernate in deep stone dens during the winter, but you can see huge masses of them during the summer.
4. Merged
5. Reworded slightly...better?
6. Yes. Clarified.
7. In that situation, yes. Statistics Canada groups Metis, First Nations and Inuit as the 3 "Aboriginal Groups"...and yet for other surveys use Aboriginal to mean those with status. I've clarified this instance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 is still too vague. Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried again; if that doesn't work, I'll probably just discard the sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part two:

1. Together, they operate approximately 1,775 kilometres (1,103 mi) of track in the province. Does 'they' refer to small companies only, or to small companies + Via Rail?
2. It has a broad range of passenger and cargo services and served over 3.5 million people in 2007, which is over the maximum capacity of 600,000 the current terminal was to handle. Does it mean that the terminal was designed to the capacity of 600,000 but serves 3.5 million? It appears that it is stretched to limit.
3. and inland to China. What does it mean?
4. Manitoba's economy grew 2.4% in 2008, the third consecutive year of growth. It looks so outdated taking into account the recent crisis.
5. Are dollar figures in 'Transportation' and 'Economy' section in Canadian or US dollars? If the latter, the article is not consistent. It should use either American dollars or Canadian, not both. (Canadian is more logical).
6. I think that 'Transportation' section should go after 'Economy', and possibly, be made a subsection of the latter.
7. Many small towns have local newspapers, and some receive deliveries of Brandon or Winnipeg papers. Please, provide a reference or drop.
8. The Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra (WSO) performs classical music and new compositions at the Centennial Concert Hall. Please, provide a reference.
9. Not everything is referenced. I see many unreferenced sentences making non-trivial claims (see above).

Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The smaller lines - clarified.
2. Incredible as it sounds, yes, that's correct. That's the main reason for the terminal redevelopment mentioned later in that paragraph. Reworded for clarity.
3. Removed "inland"
4. It is outdated, but unfortunately 2009 numbers haven't yet been released. I'll update it as soon as those are available, but I haven't found a reliable "interim" source
5. All dollar values are in Canadian dollars; that is clarified on first appearance as required by MoS
6. Moved, but I've elected to keep it as its own section
7. First part referenced, second part dropped
8. Now sourced. I would appreciate it very much if someone could verify the formatting for the first of the two sources I've provided for that fact.
9. I think this should now be addressed. However, if you have further concerns, please feel free to bring them to my attention. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should use C$ everywhere, because $ is confusing. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the following sentence: The current premier of Manitoba is Greg Selinger of the NDP. You should use 'as of' instead. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dollars changed throughout the article. I've opted to reword the premier sentence to avoid either construction. We're expecting to have 2009 economic numbers within about a month. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• Current ref 78 (A Case study..) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 120 (Einarson) lacks a page number.
• Double check that all authors are last name first in the refs. (I noted current ref 127 Dave Astor, but there may be others)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have easy access to the Einarson book, so I've replaced it with another source. All other concerns should now be addressed. Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have read the first sections so far and I think this is a nice article, which is already quite close to FA standards.

• In the Geography section, it would be extremely helpful to replace the relief image (which conveys very little information) by a map displaying the main cities, the surrounding provinces of Canada, plus perhaps labels of most important rivers and lakes. Currently, it is quite hard for an outsider to know what's being discussed. Can such a thing be done?
  • Well, we previously included this map, which includes most of the things you are requesting, but is low in quality (among other issues, it misspells "Saskatchewan"). Would that map satisfy your request? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now uploaded a version of that image with the typo corrected and included that in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That helps a lot. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In many places, the language is somewhat rusty. The aim should be that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant". There is some effort to be done in that direction. It should not be poetry, but a little more luster, please. Examples (but that issue is a general one):
  • "Baldy Mountain is the highest point at 832 metres (2,730 ft) above sea level,[9] and the Hudson Bay coast is the lowest at sea level." (two times the same structure)
    • That was deliberate - IMO it reads well with that structure. Nikkimaria (talk)
  • "including" is used extremely often, peaking in 3 times almost in a row in the Hydrography and terrain section.
  • "Major Manitoba lakes include Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipegosis, and Lake Winnipeg; the last of these is the tenth-largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest located entirely within southern Canada." could be smoothed to something like "Major Manitoba lakes include Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipegosis, and Lake Winnipeg, the tenth-largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest located entirely within southern Canada."
  • "drought-prone" and "prone" in a row (also, that sentence perhaps could be reworded content-wise, it reads a bit redundant)
  • "The region is drier...", "The region is cold..."
  • "This led to a reserve system...", "...; this has led to ..."
  • "Government efforts [...] contributed to this decision" -- woeful phrasing
  • "crown corporations like Manitoba Hydro", "services like hospitals"
  • "dominant" twice closely in Government section
  • the word Court appears 12 times in a single paragraph. Please, do your best to make this more smooth. It's not difficult. E.g. "Manitoba's judiciary consists of three courts: the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Provincial Court. The Provincial Court is " becomes "Manitoba's judiciary consists of three courts: the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Provincial Court. The latter is ..."
  • "which [...] are" appears 3x in a row in the education section.
  • "meet [...] requirements" 2x
  • "Four of these universities ..." -- the long interjection disturbs the flow.
  • I stop making such remarks. (The Culture section is no better). If you need, try to get help from some Wikipedia:League_of_Copyeditors. Don't just fix the ones I mention--instead brush over the whole text. Reading the stuff aloud may help.
    • Working on these issues, will let you know when they've been adressed. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • All specific issues raised above have been addressed (other than elevation). I'm now working on general editing for flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will continue to make small corrections, but I'm hoping the bulk of the work in this area is now done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Near the The Pas" could probably be "Near The Pas"?
  • Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• I don't understand "the highest temperature reached with the humidex in Canada"
  • Humidex, linked in the previous sentence, refers to the added effect of humidity on our perception of heat, much like wind chill, except with humidity instead of wind. Thus, the sentence refers to the highest temperate attained through a combination of actual and perceived (due to humidity) heat. That explanation is rather long for such a minor point in the article, especially as it's explained in the linked article. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • Oh, sorry. I thought humidex is just how humid it is. Now I understand, but the wording implies (to me) that the temperature was highest in Carman, where it actually is the humidex that is highest. Perhaps reword? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be good to have "Köppen climate classification" when it comes up first. Also, it should be Köppen, not Koppen at all times.
  • Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• "and the temperature may remain below −18 °C (−0 °F) for weeks" is quite unspecific
  • Removed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• The table with the city temperaturs repeats the reference [22] five times. Once is enough.
  • Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• Just a suggestion: perhaps add an image of some particular species into the fauna paragraph?
  • Polar bear added. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • So nice ;) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "shortly after the last ice age glaciers retreated" -- when was that?
  • Added approximate date. Nikkimaria (talk)
• " the Hudson's Bay Company, which was given the fur trading rights" -- by whom? Quite generally, the history section is difficult to comprehend, since it is to a good extent a list of facts, but no explanations combining them are given. For example, why destroyed French traders that fort? Was there a bigger conflict going on? These things may be clear to Canadian readers, but will not be to foreigners (such as myself).
  • I've tried to clarify potentially confusing topics. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • Much improved. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "this has led to efforts by aboriginal groups to assert rights to the land through aboriginal land claims." -- when?
  • Well...then, now, and probably well into the future. It's been an issue basically since those treaties were first signed. I'll try to clarify. Nikkimaria (talk)
• about the French-Protestant quarrels. It would be better to state who the antagonists are up front. I was wondering why Protestants closed French schools until I read on. In line with the above comment, I think the section needs more outline of bigger developments, conflicts etc. These can then be interspersed with facts corresponding to smaller events.
  • Clarified that English=Protestant and French=Catholic. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Great Depression hit especially hard" -- perhaps add the years?
  • Start date added; there's no clear end date available. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • OK, better now, but wording is awkward. (Like this, the first information (and this way catching the reader's attention in the first place) of the sentence is when the G.D. hit, but you certainly want to emphasize what it did to Manitoba, providing the date as a side information. If you agree, try to find a wording that realizes your priority.)Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reworded, added approximate end date. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The damage caused by the flood led Duff Roblin to advocate ..." -- who is Roblin? (we do have the blue link, but it would be nice to have a half-sentence [or just two words] explanation). Likewise "the Meech Lake Accord" and "Canada Act" are not explained. They should be, briefly.
  • Clarified. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • Good! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Manitoba is the only Canadian province with over fifty-five percent of its population located in a single city." -- relatively unsurprising given its small size. More specific would be a statement about the percentage of rural/urban population and comparison of that to Canada in general.
  • Could you clarify? To me, the sentence seems to do almost exactly that. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • My point is that this statement is hardly comparable with big provinces, since (unless cities are really big), hardly ever 55% of some region live in the region's main city. However, a statement such as "...% percent of the province's population live in urban environments" is comparable between big and small regions alike. Admittedly, it is a small difference. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, Manitoba isn't really a small province: it ranks fifth in population out of ten provinces. It's not huge, but its population is significant. The other issue is that %urbanization is fairly uniform across the board: there's about ±10% variation (not including territories, which are a whole other story...). In any event, that's why it's significant that over 55% of Manitoba's population lives in Winnipeg: it's the only province where that happens, that doesn't even happen in the smaller provinces. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, then it was just an ill suggestion. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly suggest replacing the table "Population of Manitoba since 1871" by a graph. Like this, few people will read it.
  • You mean like a line graph showing population growth curve? I would argue that this format provides more information. Comparable FAs like Virginia and Oklahoma use tables (although theirs are produced by a template). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's what I thought. I disagree with you, but probably that's a matter of editorial choice. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be good if the Economy section started out with a one-sentence summary of that section. Up front, "Manitoba's economy grew 2.4% in 2008, the third consecutive year of growth." tells practically nothing for an outsider. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary added. Nikkimaria (talk)
• OK, now with the lead sentence it is better. However I'm still kind of uneasy with the now-second sentence. At that point we hardly know anything about the economy, so "The province's economy grew 2.4% in 2008" is just telling is that it is kind of doing OK, but we don't know on what basis, so this remains an relatively unspecific piece of information. You don't have to, but it would be more smooth, if there would be some "starting point". What about putting the history subsection at the beginning of the Economy. Then at the end you put your 2008 growth statement. This also shows that there is still a gap between the Great Depression and this statement, which should be filled if there is anything notable (which I assume) in that period. So here is a proposal (up to you): (1) lead sentence summarizing the section, (2) Manitoba's early economy ... going to post WWII or whatever ... leading smoothly into: (3) "Today, the province's economy is moderately strong, with an average income of...", growth statement. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a sentence about GDP before the growth sentence. The issue with putting economic history first is that nothing notable happens between the WWII boom and now - there are periods of growth and stagnation, but nothing significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the rest soon. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments! I'm now working on resolving the issues you've raised here. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Government section, the ordering is messy. You start out with general facts, using present tense, thereby creating a feeling of discussing current states (but actually on second look, all these facts are (?) like this since the inception of the Legislative Assembly). Then you give some history. Then, suddenly, you mention nowaday's parties. Later, you go again back into history. This calls for some rearrangement.
  • Rearranged. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • Much better. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• once it is Premier, once premier
  • Changed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• it is clear by the above that the NDP has the majority. You could eliminate that redundancy.
  • While that's historically usual for Manitoba, the governing party need not have a majority. In fact, the current federal government is a minority government. Thus, "majority" is not redundant in this context, as Manitoba technically has a three-party system (despite the weakness of the Liberals). Nikkimaria (talk)
• "later merged with the Liberals in 1932 to form the dominant political party" could perhaps be "then-dominant"
  • That part of the sentence has been removed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• "§23 still applied" -- what's that?
  • Used to refer to a section of the Constitution - clarified. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • Still unclear. I read "However, in 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Reference re Manitoba Language Rights that §23 of the Manitoba Act still applied, and that legislation published only in English was invalid (unilingual legislation was declared valid for a temporary period to allow time for translation)". No information is given what §23 is about. Is the second part of the sentence ( legislation published only in English...) related to that §23? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a reference to §23 earlier in the paragraph that should hopefully clarify things. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In that section, somehow I miss the information who is actually speaking English and French.
  • ...the English speak English and the French speak French. I'm not quite sure how to clarify that...Nikkimaria (talk)
    • :) Yes. I was wondering how many actually speak English and French, respectively.
      • Do you mean current demographic data, or historically? As noted in the History section, there was a major shift in population shortly before the language issue arose in the 1890s, and the 1980s demographic numbers are comparable to today's. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see the 1980 list of demographics. However, this does not answer the simple question: how many inhabitants of M. speak English/French/both (and possibly other languages)? Unless I'm blind the article does not give this piece of information. Given that there is an elongated discussion of official languages, this seems to be a worthy addition, right? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, okay, I see. I've now added some statistics to the language section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another question that just comes to my mind: I don't know exactly, but instead of talking of English and French I'd expect a term like "people of English descent" or something of that effect, because few of those will actually be English citizens, I assume? Is it standard to call them this way? In the Demographics section, there are also high percentages of Germans etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in this section, those terms are being used to refer to the languages, not the people. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this language separation a big issue these days? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It exists, people are aware of it, but it's not as big an issue. Most French speakers are functionally bilingual, but there are villages and neighbourhoods where French is by far the dominant language. Of course, both are official, and education is available in both languages through post-secondary. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "public schools in Manitoba fall under the jurisdiction" -- perhaps "regulation" or something would be more apt?
  • Changed. Nikkimaria (talk)
• Media section: better spell out NCI
  • Done. Nikkimaria (talk)
• The lead is comparatively well-written in terms of prose, but its content is suboptimal. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. My personal rule of thumb: the article content should be represented roughly proportionally. Right now, Transportation, Army and Climate sections are not at all covered, Culture is half a sentence. Instead a long list of countries surrounding Manitoba is given. This has to be more balanced. Also, you can afford removing the population toll since this is given in the table right next. (There is a discrepancy, lede says 2006's population is 1,213,815, table says 2009. What is right? Also, such a precise number can't be an estimate?)
• The lead says that agriculture dominates the economy. The text doesn't convey exactly that message. What is right?
  • I've adjusted the lead, so hopefully these concerns have now been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk)

To conclude, I can not yet support the article. There is lots of good stuff. Referencing is also fine. However, firstly: prose, prose, prose! Secondly, also important, I feel that the article looks in many places a little bit like "take a list of facts and figures and write it down". I'm not Canadian, so it's hard to tell if there is anything missing, but for example in the Media section, you give several pieces of information where I thought, oh, 5 TV stations and 21 radio stations are quite a bit for such a small (in terms of population) province. However, this feeling/question is not dealt with. Just bare facts. While it is good to have verifiable facts, I feel the article currently is lacking some weighing of them. For example (I just make sth. up) "Manitoba hosts a total of 5 TV stations and 21 radio broadcasting services, thus creating a media network denser than in any other of the small Canadian provinces" would be a piece of valuable information. Another example "Winnipeg has two daily newspapers: the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun.". OK, are they any different, do the adhere to different political parties etc. Third example from that section, the 4 universities--are they comparatively well-known, good, bad, etc. I certainly don't want you to come up with inventions, but I suggest making an attempt for sharpening the material. Another example: in the army section, you list faithfully what forces are stationed there, but nothing is said about their impact, whether the Army is one of the major employers etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your extensive comments. I've replied to most of them inline, and am now working on the general points raised in your conclusion. There are some concerns/queries above, for you to respond to at your leisure. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has improved so far. The wording etc. is in general better, but would give room for further improvement, but I think I won't be overly picky. (One example, just, look for "strike[r,rs]"...)

About the other general thing: as the comment of the editor below shows I apparently got (?) a totally wrong idea about the density/sparsity of the media network. I think questions as this one should be answered by an article like this. On the other hand, I can see that many facts are just neither totally positive or negative, so I presume not every little something has to be weighed. Other questions that remain open:

• it took me several minutes to figure out how the paragraph on the Meech Lake Accord is actually related to Manitoba. It would be so simple, though, simply replace "MLA Elijah Harper" by "... Manitoban-based MLA [might want to spell that out] Elijah Harper, of Cree descent, ..." "... Elijah Harper, Member of the Manitoban Legislative Assembly of Cree descent..." or something of the like.

• Reworded. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "In response, John A. Macdonald introduced ..." -- who is that?, similarly (but at least a link is given here) with Garnet Wolseley. (A good example is "Métis leader Louis Riel")

• Both now clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rupert's Land was ceded to Canada by the Hudson's Bay Company" -- how can a company cede an area to a state? This may be a stupid question, but it is not clear to me what status of Canada had back in 1869. Was it already an officially acknowledged state? or just a conglomerate of regions? On what basis did the company give the land to Canada? From the above I know that they had fur trading rights, did they also "own" the land? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm. Well, the official account says that the HBC was "true and absolute Lordes and Proprietors" of this territory, which I interpreted to mean they actually owned it, outside of any sovereign nation. HBC "gifted" the land to the Canadian government after negotiations, and were in turn "gifted" a substantial sum of money (and by that time, HBC was quite glad to be rid of it). I've tried to clarify. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be still more pointed, but OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: In response to the various improvements made to the article these days I'd like to support the FA candidacy. Thanks to Nikkimaria for the good work. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Overall, a very nice article. I haven't read every section yet, but you've done some excellent work. Thank you. There are, however, some things which stuck out on my first reading. A sentence in the lead is contradicted by a sentence in the body of the text: Lead: "The name "Manitoba" (meaning "great spirit" or "lake of the prairies") is believed to be derived from the Cree, Ojibwe or Assiniboine language.[3]" History: "The name "Manitoba" is likely derived from the languages of the Cree or Ojibwe, and means "strait of the Manitou (spirit)". It may also be from the Assiniboine for "Lake of the Prairie".[34]"

(Also, an observation about the observation immediately above: five television stations in such a large province actually seems quite paltry; Manitoba is huge. The U.S. city of Buffalo, New York, with 1/5th the population of Manitoba, has twice as many TV stations... I definitely wouldn't call Manitoba's media network "dense"... "sparse" is the word. Jacob's suggestions for ways of filling out the prose, however, may be useful).

More this weekend as I continue the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

Any reason Winnipeg is in bold type in the climate table?

"The Nonsuch sailed into Hudson Bay in 1668–1669, becoming the first trading voyage to reach the area; that voyage led to the formation of the Hudson's Bay Company,"

You should probably explain what The Nonesuch was at the beginning of the sentence, instead of relying on readers to click on the wikilink. Also: The Nonesuch was presumably a trading vessel, not a trading voyage.

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Institutions, you have some capitalization issues in the following sentences:

The French Catholic minority asked the federal Government for support

In 1997, the "Flood of the Century" caused over C$400 million in damages in Manitoba, but the Floodway prevented Winnipeg from flooding.

Unanimous support in the Legislature was needed to bypass public consultation.

I also suggest changing:

It began May 15 and collapsed on June 25, 1919, as the workers were gradually returning to their jobs, and the Central Strike Committee decided to end the strike.

to:

It began May 15 and collapsed on June 25, 1919, as the workers gradually returned to their jobs, and the Central Strike Committee decided to end the strike.

Firsfron of Ronchester 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified/fixed most of these issues now. Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is well-sourced, grammar looks good, unclear stuff has been clarified, and the article is more comprehensive than my World Book article on the same subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 18 images. (I see why no one's done an image check yet!) Most are CC-by-SA or PD-something; all have the author listed and are verified. File:RedRiverFloodwayInletStructure.jpg, File:Winnipeg skyline from 55 Nassau.jpg, and File:Red River cart train 2.jpg should be moved to Commons. The coat of arms is fair-use, but is fully justified. Good job! --PresN 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image check! I've now moved one image and tagged two others (images in general are not my strong point). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.