Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Governor General of Canada/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Governor General of Canada

 * previous FAC

This article has been improved a lot since its previous FAC two years ago. A far as I can tell it is now featured-quality. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose very well-written but too much of the article is unsourced. Perspicacite 08:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My recommendations (Perspicacite 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)):
 * Convert citations to cite web and cite book
 * Avoid passive voice ("was," "were")
 * Attribute material
 * Condense stray sentences into paragraphs
 * Put the "Canadian institutions" section in paragraph, rather than bullet, form
 * Condense small sections into larger ones
 * Oppose I agree with Perspicacite. You should be able to find sources for much of the article without many issues.  Please also take a look at the citation formats for your existing citations.  All citations should have a publisher listed (even web pages).  Web pages should also have a last accessed date specified, and do not need language=English because that is the default for this wikipedia.  One of the existing citations is also throwing an error.  Karanacs 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Unnecessary and pointless links to standalone years, providing no support to the content of the article. Hmains 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They make us link all the dates. I'd take them out if I could get away with it.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's "they"? Suggest a look at WP:MOS and Manual of Style (dates and numbers);  Dates with days and months should be linked, so user preferences work, but not standalone years, or months & years without days. Carre 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had users vote against FLCs because individual years weren't linked. It still seems silly to me to have any dates at all linked when most of our readers aren't signed in anyway and therefore don't have user preferences set.  But this battle has already been fought and lost, and doesn't really pertain to this FAC.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For heaven's sake, delink the trivial, useless years. Who wants to have bright blue spattered everywhere without reason? Defies the requirement for professional-standard formatting at the top of the FA Criteria. 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
 * I'll gladly un-link the years, but as I've said, I've seen other FC debates where people oppose because the years aren't linked. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think things have changed since then. People realise that links need to be employed strategically. Tony   (talk)  12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.