Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geography of Canada/archive1

Geography of Canada
I am nominating this article because I believe it is well written, and is one of the more exemplory articles on Wikipedia. --Spinboy 23:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, do you realize that this is for featured article status and not for the collaboration of the week? If yes, then I will have to oppose as this article is not yet ready for even an average article yet. (At least get rid of the "Unorganized Content" sub-header. Earl Andrew 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Object, for the following reasons:
 * No references.
 * Figures that are subject to change are undated (Human geography).
 * Weird, empty "See also" section.
 * "Geography - note: During the Cold War Canada had a strategic location between Russia and US via the north polar route." Ummm, as far as I know did the tectonic forces of the Earth not move Canada to a different location since the end of the Cold War.
 * Wikilinks in section headers are a no-no.
 * (This might just be me being unfamiliar with geographic articles, but) I find it strange to see a list of treaties in an geography article. Treaties are signed by a political entity (i.e. the government), not by the rocks, lakes and sand of a country.
 * A section called "Unorganized Content" in a Featured Article? I think not.
 * --Plek 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Object This is a good start for an article.  Fill it full of information, organize it, and then resubmit it. -Jun-Dai 00:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - It just ain't ready yet. -Lommer | talk 00:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, with the same objections as the others. Also: no pictures. Go to Peer review first. Jeronimo 07:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Lacking both in content (the sections, while linking to theorically more complete articles, need to be develloped, what about the Badlands, what about the Torngat Mountains?) and organisation (Natural ressource includes lots of economic material). I must say there has been much improvement since being CCOTW, though. --Circeus 03:01, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)