Talk:European Union legislative procedure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
European Union legislative procedure was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: February 16, 2007 |
Had a little mishap as I was adding the EU Legislation template, but it seems Ok now. --Drdan 11:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Rated
- Nominate for Good Article Candidate as I feel it meets the threshold (see: WP:GA?):
- 1. It is well written: Yes.
- 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
- 3. It is broad in its coverage: Yes.
- 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy: Yes.
- 5. It is stable: Yes.
- 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic: No, not sure if an image is needed for this article in particular.
- I beg your pardon if I've acted in haste, please modify the appropriate tags as is neccessary. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA on-hold
Wouldn't worry about the images so much, as I tend to agree. How can you illustrate the co-decision procedure? With that said though, the opening statement of the article is awkward. It immediately discusses terms that have not been covered yet and would be confusing to those who have no idea what the co-decision procedure is. The opening should be more of a general overview of what we're about to read, like a thesis-statement, but more generalised for an Encyclopedia. For assistance with this, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.
Otherwise, the meat of the article is written well and is accurate. Though, where did all this knowledge come from? I know this stuff of the top of my head, but it must be cited on Wikipedia. There's many places to get this information from and to cite it, such as the Europa.eu site.
So at this point the article would fail the criteria for a "good article" (WP:WIAGA). Though, I will put it on-hold, as I believe a week is plenty of time for editors to cite the information in this article properly. The article will fail though if citations are not added. Further, the opening needs tweaked. For help with sources, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed
It's been the maximum seven days that an article can be put "on hold" during a GA review. Unfortunately the citation issue has not been resolved. If proper citations are added in the future, there's no reason not to resubmit this article for review as it would likely pass without any debate. I'd cite it myself, but I haven't the time right now. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
I think the references tag is a bit harsh. There are a hell of a lot of worse pages on Wikipedia! The source is and always was Craig, Paul, and De Burca, Grainne, EU law: text, cases, and materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). I can't remember the page or chapter numbers and I don't have a copy to hand anymore. The facts can also be confirmed by reading the treaty itself. Caveat lector 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
