Wikipedia:Featured article review/Senate of Canada/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 14:13, 14 May 2008.
Review commentary
[edit]This artcle's FTC failed because it no longer met FA standards. It was promoted at the same time as the now demoted Canadian House of Commons and likely suffers from the same kind of problems. I would like to know what it needs to get up to today's FA standard. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead needs expanding.
- Section tagged with "requires update" should be updated.
- Please cite "The Senate was ... meant to represent the social and economic élite." I know about the property qualification, but what if I was to argue that the qualification was designed to prevent corruption by ensuring that senators could not be bought or pressured by financial interests?
- Please cite the quotes.
- In the "Senators" section, it is unclear whether the original formula was proportional to population, and it has only become disproportionate due to population changes, or whether it has always been disproportionate. Needs better explanation or phrasing.
- "The Speaker may settle disputes over which senator rose first, but his or her decision may be altered by the Senate." How does the Senate alter the Speaker's decision?
- "the Speaker holds a vote (which is not usually exercised) and votes first when a recorded division is called;" this is unclear. Do they vote or not? Needs further explanation or different phrasing.
- "In the 1960s, the Senate authored the first Canadian reports on media concentration with the Special Senate Subcommittee on Mass Media or the Davey Commission,[5] since "appointed senators would be better insulated from editorial pressure brought by publishers"; this triggered the formation of press councils." Confusing use of a semi-colon. I can't tell which clause of the sentence relates to which other clause.
- The "Provincial positions" sections needs expansion to include the names of the other three provincial premiers. DrKiernan (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), lead (2a), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist lead, sources. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, no lead, largely uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Demote as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Two weeks since I made my comments: no work done. DrKiernan (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.