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.
A fact from Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please action the following issues as a priority to meet criteria 2b.
Citation 1: The text states, "The Constitution Act, 1867, is part of the Constitution of Canada and thus part of the supreme law of Canada." However, the source—which also happens to be a primary source—does not support this. I believe what you have written is accurate. I do not mind terribly that a primary source is used here; however, I'd prefer you to find a secondary source (such as a book) to support the fact that the Constitution Act is part of Canada's constitution and part of the supreme law.
Citation 4: Please include the page number. I'd also like to see a secondary source for this. You can leave the primary one in, but please find a secondary source.
Citation 5: As above.
Citation 6: As above, however, this one is a must for finding a secondary source. Your sentence is factually correct. I know that as a lawyer. However, to meet GA criteria, we need a secondary source, as this is interpretative.
Citation 8: Another primary source, please find a secondary source.
Citation's 10/11: As above.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz - Please see above. After a quick scan, I do not foresee any major issues, provided the above is addressed. Please try your best to find some secondary sources for these and let me know what you come up with. This is the only criteria I immediately see that the article does not yet meet. If these are fixed, this should be a simple review.
Hi MaxnaCarta, thanks for the comments. Please see my comments below:
Citation 1: I've expanded the cite to broaden it to all of s. 52 and the pinpoint in the Schedule. I can provide a secondary source, but not for a few days. As luck would have it, yesterday was Canada Day, which commemorates the passage of the Constitution Act, 1867, and we have a long weekend. When I'm back in the office mid-week, I can provide a secondary source.
Citation 4: Page number to what? Will be able to provide a secondary source.
Citation 5: Ditto.
Citation 6: Ditto.
Citation 8: Added quotation from Lucas, the editor of the Durham Report 3 volume set, summarising Durham's position, later cited in detail in the "Purpose & Interpretation" section.
Citations 10 & 11: Not sure I understand what you're asking for here?
@MaxnaCarta: Hi, I've addressed most of your comments. Please take a look. Some of the added links are available online, but a couple were to hard copy books. Still not sure what you are asking for with regards to cite 4 (now cite 6), or cites 10 & 11 (now cites 17 & 18)? Please take a look at it all. Thanks again for your comments. I think the additional cites improve the article; appreciated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. I’d only done a quick initial scan so don’t worry too much. I’m a fairly lenient reviewer, we are after a good article and not perfect so provided it meets the core criteria we ought to be good to go. I’ll review today and let you know any issues. Cheers — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking of cutting out some of the early English stuff. The more I think I about it, I think it's a bit top-heavy. Could start that section instead with the current sentence "Section 54 has its origins...", then cut out the next three sentences, then continue with "After the English Civil War..." Would take out the picture of Chas I as well. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz I am satisfied with the sources at this time. I have made some copyedits and the copyvio looks good. As a result, I am passing this. Good work and I very much appreciate the patience while I took much longer than normal to review. I have had many distractions at present preventing me from being more timely, however I needed to properly review during what little spare time I had and you have been most cordial and not pushed me at all, so that is appreciated and noted. now, there are no barriers to passing the basic GA criteria however some general feedback to improve this article:
Could be more digestible. Sufficiently broad and clearly explained to pass GA. However if you want to one day go FA this needs more deeper explanation of terminology such as House of Commons. What is that? I know because I am from a common law system. However someone from the US may not realise it is akin to their House of Reps. Just an example of how to expand.
Article is succinct, but could be longer while still being relevant to broaden the discussion of content.
Clearly written and properly so, but not quite at the high professional standard for FA. Please download Grammarly or some other tool and have a go at seeing what suggestions for writing in active voice it makes etc.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Detailed discussion of DYK nomination: October 2023
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I agree that, unless you're a political science or Canadian politics buff, neither hook really stands out as hooky or catchy. If no other hooks are possible then regrettably this nomination may need to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found in discussions with American friends that they are interested in the differences between Canadian and American political and constitutional systems and often find references to the role of the monarch in the Canadian system to be of interest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I don't think you could have come up with a more patronising and dismissive insult than "Canadian politics buff" if you had tried. You've made it clear that DYK is no place for quirks of Canadian politics. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that. I'm a big politics buff myself! It's really just, like what Airship said, the hooks just aren't that interesting, and in my case I'm adding that they're probably only interesting to people with an interest or familiarity with Canadian politics. This is not to say that we can't feature Canadian politics on DYK. Far from it! But hooks do need to meet the guidelines, including the one on specialist knowledge, and both hooks unfortunately fail that particular criterion in my eyes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To copy his talk page message "Hi Onegreatjoke, the cite is already there. It takes you to s. 54 in the annotated consolidation by the federal Department of Justice, and there are no footnotes to s. 54; that means it's not been amended. Compare to other sections like s. 51, which have footnotes showing the amendments. The absence of a footnote in the annotated consolidation is proof that there's not been an amendment. In my view, that annotated consolidation is a secondary source." Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
