Talk:John Edward Brownlee sex scandal/GA1

GA Review

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

Prose

• "... his United Farmers of Alberta were wiped out ...", "Not a single UFA member survived the vote ...": these phrases are overly dramatic; I doubt those politicians were running through the trenches, hurling votes and jibes at the opposition.

• Occasional running sentences, such as "After the premier's testimony was completed, Smith called his wife, Florence, who supported her husband's account of MacMillan's relationship with the Brownlee family and reported that, when the premier drove MacMillan home at night, he was very seldom late returning." in which a pause at "Smith called his wife" might prove to be a slightly confusing case of "whose wife?".

• Overall, however, the prose is solid.

Neutrality

• There seems to be little weight paid to the discrepancies that surround Macmillan's testimonies (the car-sex took place next to a heavily populated area instead of the claimed quiet neighbourhood, of a stay in a room that was not true, of one night of demanded sex that instead fell on a date of a busy Halloween party, etc) have been glossed over (Smith's points were generalised into a single paragraph compared to the numerous paragraphs that focused on Macmillan's tale); so too, were the support expressed for Brownlee as reported in [Calgary's Grand Story] by Donald Smith and [Courted and Abandoned] by Patrick Brode and the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History. The effect of this seems to lend a weight (undue or not) to a "behind the scene conspiracy", which should not be so. Without the discrepancies (dependant on the testimonies that are reported in this article), Ives' verdict seem to vouch for this conspiracy.

Sources

• Why should the website for a play be considered reliable for Macmillan's biography? Could it not be found in a book about the case (or her biography)?

Images

• File:William Aberhart2.jpg is a Crown Copyrighted image (produced by the Alberta government who tightly follow Crown Copyrights), hence it requires a publication date, which is not provided. As alternatives, how about NA-2399-49 or NA-4398-9?
• File:Brownlee and wife leaving courthouse.jpg — I am unable to locate this file in the PAA. I favour it as a public domain image as the PAA does not consider other like pictures as under their copyrights, and the Glenbow archives show similar photos as taken by McDermid studios. However, there is no verifiable evidence that the PAA is not claiming copyright over it (since the play site is stating "courtesy of the Provincial Archives of Alberta, and used with permission.") Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Claims of copyright over public domain images are rampant on the internet; I generally ignore them. In this case, the photograph was unquestionably taken in Canada and unquestionably taken before 1948, so the only way it would be under copyright is if it was a government work (and even then, it would only be under copyright if it was never published prior to 1958, which seems unlikely). There is no reason whatever to believe that it is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I am of the tendency that it would be preferable to have indisputable proof (material or theoretical) for images. Could we not use Mrs. Brownlee's portrait in place of it (Standard number A8006 on the PAA)? Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • While indisputable proof is certainly preferable, I think it's an unreasonably high threshold to require. Florence Brownlee's portrait would be acceptable in this article; however, I am likely to use it in the John Edward Brownlee article (which is next up on my agenda), and I would prefer to minimize overlap between the two, since they are so closely linked. While you can obviously decline to promote the article on this basis, if you did so I would solicit outside views on the question at WP:GAR. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I am in a quandry here. Without concern for this image, I can pass the article. You have stated "unreasonabley high threshold", but I am not yet sure the bar has been raised there yet. I have sent an email to the Provincial Archives of Alberta, requesting information on the image found on the play's website. Shall we put this on hold for yet another week? Jappalang (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
          • That strikes me as a sound course of action; WP:DEADLINE, and all that. If you don't mind waiting, neither do I. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
            • They have replied, not taken by them. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede

• "The John Brownlee sex scandal was a 1934 sex scandal in Alberta, Canada that forced the resignation of Premier of Alberta John Edward Brownlee."

There is a repetitive feel about it since the article title is an explicit declaration of the contents. It is not necessary to push for the article title in the opening sentence, see Mozart in Italy and its FAC.

Suggestion: "In 1934, Premier of Alberta John Edward Brownlee was forced to resign due to his involvement in a sex scandal."

I've reworked it; see what you think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is okay with me. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "MacMillan claimed that the married premier had told her that she must have sex with him for his own sake and that of his invalid wife, and that she had relented after physical and emotional pressure."

Lots of "that"s in one sentence, break it up or reword?

I've split it up and reduced the occurrences of "that". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "In an unusual move, trial judge William Ives overturned the jury's finding and dismissed the case."

Best to explain why it was an unusual move, or simply state why he overturned it.

No action taken on this point; I'm not convinced that any is required, but will ruminate on it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "This decision was eventually overturned, with the final level of appeal being a March 1940 hearing before the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council, at the time Canada's highest court of appeal."

This could name the final "overturner" instead of being a totally passive statement. On another note, as "overturn" was used in the preceding statement, can another word or phrase be used here for variety?

Reworded substantially. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Genesis of the scandal

• "Those involved with the scandal gave widely differing accounts of the surrounding facts; on only a minority of details did all parties agree."

There are readers who skip the lede and jump straight to the start of the main body; thus, the sudden introduction of "scandal" might give them pause (although the title of the article is a give away). Perhaps some way to ease an introduction in, e.g. "In 1934, Brownlee became embroiled in a sex scandal, which had major consequences on his political career." as the sentence before this.

Good idea; I've pirated it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... while the rest of the Brownlee family was vacationing at Sylvan Lake, she was going for a car ride with the Premier when he noticed they were being followed."

Suggestion: "... while the rest of his family was vacationing at Sylvan Lake, Brownlee was taking MacMillan for a car ride when he noticed they were being followed."

This too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "She eventually relented and let him in;"

Is "and let him in" not redundant?

Without it it's not clear whether she merely stopped asking him to leave or actually let him in. Not a crucial detail, admittedly, but it's not wholly redundant. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... okay. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... and that of her children."

Her (Mrs. Brownlee, I presume) children were not fathered by Brownlee?

They were. After some mucking about trying to get the wording right, I've concluded that it's not really that important and just deleted it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vivian MacMillan's story

• "... when she had met Brownlee in 1930 he had told her ..."

Simple past tenses would do for both verbs here.

Agreed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is no writing of MacMillan's response to Brownlee's first request for sex in her story.

Added one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, actually I am kind of asking if her story had her and Brownlee doing it then (because it later goes on about partial penetration on the second encounter and consensual for the later sessions)... Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't seem to say explicitly that there was no sex, but that's the clear implication there and, I think, here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of a cliff-hanger, really, but there is nothing we can do if no reliable sources reported it. Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... forcing MacMillan, against her resistance, into ..."

I believe "against her resistance" is redundant.

I've reworded. I think it's important to note the alleged resistance: if I put a gun to your back and demanded that you do something, you could legitimately say that I forced you to do it, even if you didn't resist in any way. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am enlightened. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... but his reaction to her resolution was angry ..."

Suggestion: "... but he reacted angrily ..."

Yes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "October 31, 1932 she had dinner with Brownlee's sons and also visited Brownlee, who was sick in bed."

What is up with the beginging of this sentence?

I added the word "on". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

John Brownlee's story

• "... which testimony was corroborated by his wife ..."

Is "testimony" not redundant?

Yes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... according to rumour, MacLean had been involved in a drunk driving incident ..."

If Brownlee is bringing this up, why is it "according to rumour"?

I've reworded slightly. I can't find a source definitely tying this allegation to Brownlee himself (it's likely that he would have been bound by some sort of confidentiality not to make the allegation even if true). I've instead attributed it to unnamed defenders of his, which matches the source. You could argue that that doesn't belong under a section headed "John Brownlee's story", but I think it's thematically linked in that it's the pro-Brownlee version of events. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... the result of scheming by an opportunistic young medical student and his impressionable girlfriend and encouraged by a vindictive lawyer and unscrupulous political opponents."

Suggestion: "... the result of scheming by an opportunistic young medical student and his impressionable girlfriend, encouraged by a vindictive lawyer and unscrupulous political opponents."

Adopted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Trial

• "Smith noted that Mrs. Brownlee's room had a large deadbolt on the door: if she had feared Brownlee, why hadn't she used it?"

Is the last part a quote (note also the contraction)?

It's a paraphrase. I've removed the contraction. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Other witnesses for the plaintiffs ..."

Who? We have only heard of MacMillan (one of the plaintiffs) on the stand so far...

When you say "who" do you mean "what other witnesses?" or "What plaintiffs?" If the first, it's answered later in that sentence. If the second, the two plaintiffs are listed in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Genesis" section. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that plaintiff was testifying before the judge, but suddenly we are told of "other witnesses for the plaintiffs", which would imply who was the first witness for the plaintiff. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The first witness for the plaintiffs was Vivian MacMillan. "Other witnesses" refers to the witnesses other than her. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that... Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... recalled the Halloween night MacMillan had referred to in her testimony ..."

Not stated until here. Macmillan should have mentioned Halloween night earlier.

She did, in the "Vivian MacMillan's story" section. I've avoided repeating material from that section and Brownlee's section in the trial section, though of course the bulk of both parties' testimony would have echoed what was established earlier in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, blame this on my doddering memory... Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "... as the jury went to view both Brownlee's house two stretches of road where ..."

Missing conjunction or something else?

Conjunction. Added. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Media and public reception

• "Nor was media attention limited to Albertan, or even Canadian, media:"

Bit of exaggeration with "or even" and I am not certain the first sentence of paragraphs should start with "Nor".

Suggestion: "Media attention on the trial spread beyond the state and national borders:"

Adopted, except that in Canada we have provinces, not states. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeals

• "Ives' decision was overturned at the Supreme Court of Canada on March 1, 1937 (this appeal too was funded with the help of a Bulletin fundraising campaign)."

We could eliminate the brackets, and establish a connection to the preceding idea.

Suggestion: "Not satisfied with the verdict, the Bulletin again organized a campaign to fund another appeal, which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 1, 1937, Ives' descision was overturned by the highest court in the country."

Largely adopted, except that the Supreme Court was not the highest court in Canada at the time (the British Privy Council was). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now there is a "which" followed by a "which" in the same sentence. Any way to fix this? Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dammit. I've changed it. The use of the passive voice there may be regrettable, but I think it's preferable to repeating "The Supreme Court" and I don't think a pronoun's an option. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

• "... William Aberhart's upstart Alberta Social Credit League ..."

"Upstart" carries a negative connotation, which would be NPOV-ish.

Deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The above are immediate prose issues to be discussed or acted on. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In summary, GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some overly dramatic prose

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   I am rather suspicious of the information for Macmillan's biography from a play Play removed as a source.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Missing certain details of the court session, and advocates of Brownlee Media reaction, and MacMillan's discrepancies filled in.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems to side with Macmillan's version of events, or hinting of a conspiracy behind the scenes Presents both sides of the story as seen as the sources.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   William Aberhart's image might be deleted

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold, I think it should be easily resolved. Jappalang (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Passed. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for your review:

• I believe I've now addressed the prose issues you've identified. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I had not realized that that photograph was govermment-produced and therefore subject to crown copyright; I've replaced it with one of your suggestions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• With regards to the neutrality points, I'm not sure I agree. I thought the article tilted, if anything, against Brownlee. That said, I'm going to get a copy of Courted and Abandoned from my law school library tomorrow and see if I can rework some of the article a bit; this point would be better-addressed after that time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It was my thought that the article was slanted to sympathize with Macmillan, and cast Brownlee as a man who was trying to worm his way out of a conviction; the "behind the scene conspiracy" I mentioned was on a supposition of Ives' condemnation and overturning of the jury's verdict in the face of the article's few discrepancies on Macmillan's testimonies. When the contradictions on major parts of Macmillan's testimonies are brought into light, one could possibly agree with the Justice in his assessment, rather than suspect something that might not be there. The lack of mention of the support behind Brownlee at that time also induces one to think a conspiracy existed to get Brownlee off the hook. Of course, there could also be other information that could condemn Brownlee in the two books mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• With regards to MacMillan's biographical information, I agree that the source is suspect, and it would prevent this article from passing FAC (as would a few other factors at the moment, I suspect). However, the good article criteria require that "at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"; I don't believe the biographical information falls under any of these categories, and it would be my preference to continue including it until I can find a more ironclad source (I've e-mailed the site to request their sources, but they've yet to get back to me). If need be, it can be deleted, but I think that all in all it would weaken the article without bringing it more compliant with the GA criteria. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well... that is true; she is dead. Let me think it over and scrutinise it further. Jappalang (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Per arrangement, this review is on extended hold. I gauge it as roughly two weeks. Jappalang (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Another pair(s) of eyes for prose and organisation would be recommended if this article is to be nominated for FA. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)