Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parliament of the United Kingdom/archive1

Parliament of the United Kingdom
-- Emsworth 18:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Bmills 13:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 14:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. func(talk) 20:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Very informative and well written.
 * Support Deus Ex 21:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well written, coherent
 * Object for now. There is no external links section (I'd expect at least a parliament homepage?). I'd also like to see a link to the lists of PMs past and present, on or off-Wiki, or at the very least a section on famour PMs. The article is also a bit long (38kb now), perhaps some sections should be moved to a separate artucles? The existing sections are very informative and well written, and I will likely support this after my concerns are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * With the progress being made I change my objection to abstain for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There is an external link to the UK parliment homepage! As for an article being too long, I personally do not think that is a valid objection, if the subject matter requires the space. I'd hate to see any sections removed from this candidate. Filiocht 12:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes; there is indeed an external link. As far as the length: the topic is an important one, and requires an great amount of space. Actually, I did not go into as much detail about ceremonies, procedure and constitutional theory as I would have liked, for I foresaw such an objection. -- Emsworth 20:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please do go into said detail, either here or in a sub-article. Personally I find the length objection ridiculous, but each are entitled to their own opinion.  But certainly if you have good info add it somewhere. - Taxman 03:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Length objections are not ridiculous since we are an encyclopedia project not a book project. That said, I don't think the current article size is too large (given the topic) but if it does get significantly longer then, and only then, should there be an effort to summarize longer sections and move the more detailed text to daughter articles. See summary style. In fact I think that the lead section is woafully short for an article this size and therefore object until that is fixed. Otherwise this is a good article. --mav 05:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded intro to two paragraphs.
 * Support. Zerbey 08:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support; some suggestions though: 1) add some more subsections, especially in the long history section. This makes it easier to find a particular topic within the page. 2) Another picture or two would be nice, perhaps a painting or photo from inside the House of Commons or Lords? Jeronimo 07:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Very thorough article, but I have two minor issues.  One, I found the lead very clunky.  Could some of the content there be moved elsewhere? And two, the article needs materials on the qualifications of members, e.g. age, citizenship, not being bankrupt or insane, etc.  I also think a mention of how peers couldn't be members in the Commons or vote would be useful. The Tony Benn case over sitting in the Commons and the right to disclaim a peerage should be mentioned.  (If this material is covered elsewhere, then ignore me; I only read the nominated article).  PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * All this is covered in the article Peers and Parliament, British House of Commons, etc. -- Emsworth 18:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. A lot of good material, but I agree the lead section needs still a bit more work.  Especially hard to understand is the second paragraph.  Is the sovereign the one with the ultimate power or not.  One sentance seems to say one thing, the next another. For ex, what does 'parliamentary sovereignty' even mean in the lead section, that parliament has the final say or the queen has the final say over parliament? Also, no mention of the greater concept of parliament, such as parliamentary procedure in general.  Nor any mention of whether the UK parliament was the first parliament and how it relates to others. - Taxman 16:38, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the point of the second paragraph was that the extent of parliamentary sovereignty (shorthand for the sovereignty of the Queen-in-Parliament) is unclear. But, it appears that the paragraph itself became unclear; so now, detailed discussion is reserved for the main portion of the article. Procedure should not be discussed in detail; each House has its own separate procedures, which are discussed in the separate articles on the chambers. The concept of Parliament is covered in Parliament. The relationship with other Parliaments has been noted (but briefly); all this is also covered in Parliament. -- Emsworth 01:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good fixes. I'm not asking for procedure to be covered in detail, just discussed summarily (such as what it is, importance, and other basics) and linked to.  It is a prominent feature of the UK (and any other) Parliament is it not?  Besides, there is no way to know from this article that those aritcles discuss the procedure. The concept of parliament may be in that article, but there was not a single link in this article to that one. There are also some terms in the intro that would only be known to someone familiar with the british system, such as sovereign, and peerage.  Those need a quick inline definition. Also, what does "Queen-in-Parliament" mean? Is that just the queen when she's sitting in Parliament? Finally, the term "supreme" in the first sentence is a bit self aggrandizing, and could stand to be replaced with a different word such as ultimate, final, authoritative, etc., or phrase meaning similar. - Taxman 15:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. As to the Queen-in-Parliament: the Queen need not be physically present in either Chamber; rather, the term refers to the Queen acting on the advice and with the consent of Parliament (as opposed to, for example, the Queen-in-Council, or the Queen acting with the advice [but not necessarily the consent] of the Privy Council). -- Emsworth 20:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Supreme in that context refers to the fact that no other law making body can overturn its legislation. Maybe they be a should be a short note or something to explain that, because it isn't obvious what it means (added note). Deus Ex 17:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)