Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
There are significant problems with this article, and I suspect that I will not wind up passing it; while concerns with the quality of the writing can be easily enough addressed, I'm not at all sure that the article is sufficiently broad in its treatment of the subject, and I have serious concerns about the sourcing. That said, I will place it on hold to allow for improvements and for any rebuttal you may wish to offer to the points I have raised. Steve Smith (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair to middling. Some concerns:

• "...he came to New Zealand after spending some time in Australia..." Suggest eliminating "some", which adds nothing (and, if possible, replacing it with a more specific amount of time.
• "New Zealand" appears in each of the first three sentences - try reducing repetition.
• "Through his first wife, he had three brothers in law as fellow Members of Parliament." Awkward. Maybe "Three of his brothers in law through his first wife served as his fellow Members of Parliament."?
• "he came to considerable wealth due to mining of mica." "the minding of mica"? Or is this a dialectical thing?
• "He married Theresa Australia Brown (née Peacock) on 11 October 1859[4] in Sydney, the daughter of John Jenkins Peacock (d. 1866) and Maria Peacock (1804–1884)." Maria Peacock gave birth to the entire city of Sydney? Or just the female residents?
• "He gave the area a Cherokee name..." Unclear antecedent, since the previous sentence refers to "the Browns".
• "The residence was called Chippenham and still stands today." Which residence? The Christchurch Tramway Board's?
• "On election day on 18 February..." I'd recommend removing the exact date, which just bulks up the sentence; if anyone needs to know the exact date of the election, the article is wikilinked.
• "Brown achieved an absolute majority, with 171 votes, and 82 and 67 votes for Gray and Maskell..." Brown achieved 82 and 67 votes for Gray and Maskell? Kind of him.
• "Both reflected on their experience..." In deciding whether or not to accept their nominations?
• "In response to several deputations urging him to stand again, Brown announced in mid August that his situation had now changed, and he would not stand at all. His friends "would have to be release him from his promise not to stand", but he would consider putting his name forward if they did release him." This is confusing: first he might run, then after his friends asked him to run he said that he wouldn't run unless his friends (the very people asking him to run) would have to release him from his promise not to run (which was apparently made in response to his friends asking him to run)?
• "Brown did not contest any electorate..." This could be a dialectical thing too, but in Canada "electorate" refers to the voters, not to the electoral district. Is it different in New Zealand?
• "Brown contested the St Albans electorate in the 9 December 1881 general election with J. L. Wilson and A. W. O'Neill." Is this standard wording in NZ English? In Canada, we'd say "against" rather than "with" ("with" seems to suggest that they were on the same side), but if that's a dialectical difference then just tell me.
• "His son William Vance Brown..." As this is a new section, it's probably worth using Brown's name again.
• The entire "Family" section reads like a list of facts, rather than as descriptive prose, and should be reworked completely or removed.
• "Brown left Parliament and the parents emigrated to America with three of their children (Maria, Katy and Hubert)." It's not clear who "the parents" refers to here. I assume it's Brown and his new bride, but if that's the case it should be put in much clearer language.
• "They left Lyttelton on 30 August 1884 (the same year as his father died)" What is the purpose of the parenthetical, especially when the same information is given in the next sentence and in an earlier section?
• "They went to Asheville in North Carolina..." Why not just "Asheville, North Carolina"? Is this a dialectical thing?
• "...as his father (1803–84) owned large areas of land there." First, unclear antecedent to "his". Second, much more awkward wording than necessary. Third, we were already told Brown father's lifespan. What about "...where Brown's father owned much land."?
• "They built a factory..." What kind of factory? Is this somehow related to mica?
• "His daughter Kate Elizabeth married at Asheville on 18 November 1892, had three children and died in New York." Why is this being mentioned here, rather than in the section devoted entirely to his family? Steve Smith (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While all information does appear to be sourced, I'm rather concerned at the extent to which this article uses primary sources; several paragraphs appear to be sourced entirely to primary sources (provided we consider contemporary newspaper accounts to be primary sources, which, in the study of history, we generally would). Are there no good secondary sources available? Steve Smith (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being a little concerned here. According to the article, his claim to fame is that he spent more than a decade as an MP, and yet the article does not mention a single thing that he did while MP. Is there really no information about that in any sources, online or offline? I have trouble believing that. On the other hand, the detail about his brothers in law seems excessive: what bearing does (for example) John Thomas Peacock's electoral record have on John Evans Brown, especially when it's already dealt with in Peacock's own article? Steve Smith (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I have the same question about the relevance of the 1897 results in Ashley. Steve Smith (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns - pass. Steve Smith (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - pass. Steve Smith (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the article (the signature and two flags) are all appropriate licensed. It would obviously be nice if an image of the subject himself could be found, but I assume reasonable efforts in this direction have been exhausted. WIth that in mind, I'll pass this criterion. Steve Smith (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Steve Smith (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]