Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canadian House of Commons/archive1


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

The article was removed 18:52, 31 October 2007.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject Canada, User:Lord Emsworth, User:Montrealais, and User:The Tom

In February, the Canadian Parliament series failed a FTC nomination because, apparently, none of the FA articles met current criteria. I'd like to know what can be done to get them back up to snuff. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an old promotion, so it doesn't have inline citations. There's one external jump in the text. Also, could the nominator inform relevant projects and editors according to the FAR directions? Jay32183 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If inline citations are all that are needed, will putter away at this article over the next while to save its feature status.  Also contacted a few more editors to the article.SriMesh |  talk  02:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 18:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 10:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove uncited hard data and opinion, mixed reference styles (some Harvard inline, some cite.php), mixed dash styles, unlinked full dates, hyphens instead of negative signs, template mid-sections (further info). Article appears abandoned.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please enlighten me on the difference between a hyphen and a negative sign? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:DASH, also, when you're in the edit mode, see the list of math symbols following the bold Insert line under the edit box, which start with an endash, emdash, followed by other symbols and then the math symbols. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or WP:MOS Tony   (talk)  01:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks well-written now. Pity not to complete the job with more references. Tony   (talk)  01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS I've never seen the point of a bloated infobox: much of the information it contains should be (probably is) in the main text. It's so long that it overpasses the table way below it, at least on my puter, until you widen the window considerably.  Tony   (talk)  01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I like big infoboxes. Many times I've been saved from having to read a whole article when I just wanted the key stats.  This, one, however, could probably be streamlined by not using the full titles for everything.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Spaced or unspaced em dashes; inconsistent, and MOS prefers unspaced.
 * Space before ellipsis dots.
 * does.).—Remove the first dot.
 * Stubbify the huge redlink list at the botttom?
 * MOS says to specify C$ on first occurrence. Tony   (talk)  14:18, 31 October 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.