Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monarchy of Canada/archive1

Monarchy of Canada
I'm nominating this article for featured article because its meets most or all of the criteria for a Featured Article including detail, sources, and quaility. Fedarated AK74-u (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for re-nominating it. However, I think it needs a review again; some of the issues raised the last time around have since been addressed, but others remain, such as:
 * The article's length of 80kb was raised as a negative; it is now even longer at 88kb.
 * There may be some repetition in the sections; I've been meaning for a while to do a comb-through for this. More consise wording may still be needed as well.
 * Not to say these things can't be addressed! I look forward to getting the article up to FA status. --G2bambino (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Have you consulted with the major contributors to the article about nominating this for FAC? It doesn't look like you've edited the article yourself. The references need to be properly and consistently formatted; at the moment, the majority of them are not. Budding Journalist 05:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As said, the formatting of references is poor.  This isn't just a style issue.  Looking at "References", I should be able to quickly see who you're relying on, before I click to follow the link.  More significantly, the article seems to focus more on the technical, than the practical power of the Queen and GC.  IMO the lead exaggerates the role of the Queen and the Governor General.  Sourcing is poor, in overly relying on primary documents and government web sites.  Somebody unfamiliar with Canada, could easily get a misleading idea of who has authority in this country.  We don't even mention the PM in the lead.  Unrelated to all this, Image:Roy-fam-canada.jpg is a nonfree image, that is IMO unjustified.  It does almost nothing to explain the Canadian monarchy.  It once had Canadian-politician-photo, which doesn't exist any more.  We also use Image:Roy-fam-2007.jpg from Getty Images (a universial no-no).  And lastly, there's Image:UCC-duke.jpg, which unfree.     --Rob (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why would one mention the Prime Minister in the lead of an article about the monarchy? And how do you differentiate between the "technical" and "practical" power of the Crown beyond what's already said about constitutional workings? The article was partly modelled on the British counterpart, which itself was elevated to FA status, and which doesn't mention the PM in the lead. Further, an FA article can't have fair use images!? --G2bambino (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because so much of what's done in the name of the Crown (in right of Canada), is in fact done at the PM's direction. The PM is certainly more important to the Canadian Crown than Prince Philip, who is mentioned.  The lead says she has "ultimate executive authority over the government", without making clear that it's purely ceremonial.  It gives the impression the Queen has great authority, which is delegated to the GC.  In fact, the Queen has virtually no authority, and the GC has very limited authority.  As for images, I'm not saying no fair use images are ok.  I'm just saying there are at least three unjustifiable uses.  --Rob (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Purely ceremonial" is a misleading description; the functions of the Crown are no less real because they're normally exercised within constraints. Constraints that, by the way, are mentioned right in the lead, and detailed further on in the article. On the subject of images: what others are there to illustrate the current family? They're rarely, if ever, gathered together in one public place. --G2bambino (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)