Talk:Disallowance and reservation in Canada

Disallowance and reservation in Canada has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 9, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disallowance and reservation in Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 March 2022 by reviewer ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · contribs).

Canada: Governments / Law Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disallowance and reservation in Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kwkintegrator (talk · contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Reviewer's comment: I am highly satisfied this reaches GA criteria. I have minor suggestions I will place in the main article talk page, but this was a pleasure to read. It isn't lost on me that this is a difficult and abstract topic, and it has been wrangled about as well as I can imagine to be accessible to a general audience. Excellent work on illustration, I would encourage use of descriptive image alt-text in future. I will finally note that an inherent weakness in this article may be the lack of non-book sources, as I know many Wikipedia users enjoy being linked out to something accessible for further reading, but with a link to La Forest's book, I'm satisfied the sources are reputable.Kwkintegrator (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions Arising from GA Review

@Caddyshack01, congratulations on all your work and on this article becoming a Good Article.

I'd like to point to some suggestions, which, while I didn't find were preclusive of passing for GA, you might want to consider making to the article.

1) In section 4.1, the way the paragraphs are structured, the four categories for disallowance are listed twice, and with this section being long, it might be nice if you could rewrite it in such a way that would remove the need for citing La Forest's synthesis of the four reasons, and reference Macdonald's OIC/categorizations on a standalone basis.

2) Also in 4.1, the last paragraph, starting with "Shortly after Confederation" is on the harder to understand side, especially the start of the paragraph speaking about Royal instructions. The article may benefit from taking a second crack at making it understandable to a wide audience.

3) In 4.2, you reference "removal property right" with regard to piloting logs and fee collection on logs. I found this difficult to understand, and explaining the particulars of the case a little differently (possibly by adding a sentence or two) would help illuminate why it led to disallowance.

4) Also in 4.2, you mention an uptick in petitions for disallowance. Clarifying who made these petitions and why (business similar to the logs, or appeals to societal injustice) would add a level of information valuable to the reader.

5) I made reference to alt-text in the GA review, please disregard my comment there, I subsequently reviewed WP:ALT and realized I incorrectly assumed you had a duplicated caption and alt-text. I see now that this isn't the case.

Best, Kwkintegrator (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kwkintegrator, thank you for taking the time to complete the GA review! I am glad that it met the standards for a GA. I will look at your suggestions and the article over the next two weeks and see how they can be incorporated. Thanks again! - Caddyshack01 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]