Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute/archive1

2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is currently on the main page, in the ITN section. It's an evolving story in Canada, but the article should become fairly stable for a little bit, because the Governor General (our head of state) has complied with the Prime Minister's demands to shut down Parliament, so that he can stall for time.

Besides a few of the references being without the proper "cite" templates, what should be changed?

Thanks, Zanimum (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a bit too soon to request a peer review? Things are rapidly changing by the day. It's probably a better idea to discuss with the article's other editors on its talk page about what the article needs first, as there are currently a lot of people involved with the article. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A peer review might be necessary because of the loyalists to the various political parties that are editing the article. It is rapidly losing its NPOV. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the above comment 11 days ago (nearly two weeks). It has changed a lot since then, so perhaps it does need one now. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a quick scan / read through the article - would someone more familiar with Canadian politics be able to review it for POV issues? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As noted above, I do not see major POV issues (but am also not an expert on Canadian politics). Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a Neutrality disputed tag on the Unity crisis section, but I do not really have the time to read up on this and see what the problem is.
 * While the article is generally well cited, there are a few places that need references. I think this is especially important when there are POV issues. For example, the last phrases here need a ref (or two): was strongly rejected by the opposition on the grounds that it lacked any fiscal stimulus during the ongoing economic crisis,[9][10] for its suspension of federal civil servants' ability to strike, and for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues. especially since the women's pay issue has not been mentioned before. Or the last sentences of the first paragraph in the Formation of a coalition section need a ref (though I suspect it may just be a repeat of the ref for the dirtect quotation).
 * While I like the six photo infobox, the photos in it are small. The rest of the article is pretty text-dense and lacks images. I wonder if it might be better to have a single, different lead image (perhaps the Ottawa Parliament photo?), with the six photos distributed throughout the rest of the article? Just an idea.
 * It might be confusing for non-Canadians to refer to the Governor General as the viceroy, as in Harper's office also organised protests outside of the viceroy's residence,
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V