Wikipedia:Canada collaboration/Leader of the Opposition (Canada)

This nomination was selected as the April 2006 Canada collaboration. (improvements)

Leader of the Opposition (Canada)
Two paragraphs is pretty weak for the position of "Prime Minister-in-waiting".

([ vote or comment])

Support:
 * 1) Jord 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Andrew pmk | Talk 01:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Tarret 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Omnieiunium 07:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Jhohenzollern 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Kilter 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Cr  na  t e c   Go  ra  04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Keeperoftheseal 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * No question the LO is important, but what should be added to the article that isn't there already? - Greyfedora 16:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The concept of PM-in-waiting, the role of the opposition and the leader in the chamber, the creation of a shadow cabinet, the evolution of the position since 1867, etc. - Jord 18:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There may not be alot to adress, that hasnt been adressed, but the article is seems very haphazard
 * Many of the votes for this topic are stale. After what happened in March with CSIS (i.e. no significant edits), I'd hate to see April's collaboration take the same path. I've suggested on the talk page that old votes be pruned from the voting rolls, perhaps any vote older than 4 months. People who had their votes pruned can simply revote again. This ensures legitimate and current interest in the topic. I fear this topic will see no significant interest in April if it becomes the CCOTM over something more currently popular such as the Athabasca Tar Sands. --Dogbreathcanada 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I compared the articles and Leader of the Opposition (Canada) looks like a stub compared to Athabasca Tar Sands, I'd like to nominate the other, but it has to go sometimes and rules need to be followed. Even if it is ignored in April we have an exciting article collabaration coming in May (that looks to be on the way to a FA, perhaps?). feydey 20:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the rules should be changed/updated for upcoming months. There's little point blindly following a set of rules that aren't working properly. --Dogbreathcanada 20:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Continued in Wikipedia_talk:Canada_collaboration. feydey 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)