Talk:National Register of Electors

National Register of Electors 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the unauthorized use of data from the National Register of Electors, the permanent database of eligible Canadian voters, can carry a penalty of a year in prison?

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: Governments 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.

Article name[edit]

Surely the article name should include Canada, as it is only about the register for that country? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Is there any other electoral list specifically called "National Register of Electors" for which this article name would cause confusion? If not, then I believe it's unnecessary. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick research into the matter shows that in Ireland it's called the "Electoral Register", and in the UK and India it's the "Electoral Roll". I believe that in the U.S. it's the responsibility of each individual state to maintain it's own list of registered voters, in which case "National" isn't even an issue. This would also not be an issue with non-English speaking countries. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Register of Electors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

There are a couple deadlinks that need to be fixed: see here.
"minimizing participation inequality which typically affects "the kinds of individuals, such as the young, the poor and those with little formal education"[3] who tend to not take the initiative to participate in electoral and related events." I see what you're saying, but when reading the sentence out loud it sounds odd. Reword, ideally putting the quote in your own words since that may be was causing the jarring text.
"which has relied on a permanent register for a long time." had relied would be better here
"The Elections Act as amended by Bill C-2 granted Royal Assent on 31 May 2000 contains" contained. Since this is something that has been in effect for a while, there should be no tense issues in the article; a tense check for any present-tense sentences I missed would be beneficial, though I think there were just those couple.
"Targeted revision involves sending pairs of "revising agents" to certain areas such as new residential developments, areas known for high population mobility, student residences, nursing homes and chronic care facilities." citation preferred for this.
I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the Provincial voter lists section. Having the comparisons between the two is fine, but specifics about the provincial lists should be in those articles rather than this one.
A couple references are in all caps. That is discouraged even if that's how they are written in the ref itself, so fix those.

I'll put the article on hold for a week and will pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes, merging duplicate refs, de-capitalising ref titles, fixing tense issues, and other minor tweaks. Only one of the links reported as broken is actually broken, all the rest are OK. (I'm not sure why the automated tools are reporting that registration is required, as I can access them with no registration and cookies blocked.) The only dead link of concern is the ref titled "Institution-Specific Classes of Records", which seems to have no remaining trace on the internet. (Google has a cached, HTML-ified copy of the RTF version of that document. See this.) The original source is currently purging all 2009 documents in that class and replacing them with 2010 documents. Mind matrix 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. Once that one sentence is reworded i'll pass. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went and fixed that, so this now passes as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that - I've tweaked it slightly by inverting the position of 'who' and 'that'. Mind matrix 18:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]