Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monarchy in Canada/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Monarchy in Canada
I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. This article clearly explains Canada's constitutional monarchy: How it started and how it works. Monarchy in Canada is a subject that many people are unfamiliar with. For example, many, if not most, people don't correctly understand the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. This article really has the has the potential to be a great main page article. That's all I have to say about that! 
--Mb1000 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Object
- The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg, Image:Queencanada.jpg have no source or copyright information.
- The image Image:HM-tablet.jpg has no copyright information.
- --Carnildo 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Support I think that this is an excellent article and well deserving of featured article status, but the copyrights of those three images definitely need to be addressed. Once that is addressed, I will support. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 17:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg & Image:HM-tablet.jpg have been tagged as {CanadaCopyright} and {promophoto} respectivley. For the third image Image:Queencanada.jpg I'm am requesting information from the person who uploaded it. If no information is found on this image, it could just be removed from the article. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Object. It is a good article, but still needs some work. It lacks a references section, which is required for a FA. The formatting also needs some work. The article over uses bullet points. Wikipedia articles should be prose not lists and the mass of bolding in the first paragraph is ugly. The "Royal visits" section needs more content than a single link, there certainly needs to be some content on the major royal visits in this article, perhaps in the history section. The point counterpoint arrangement of the "support and opposition" is also not ideal. It would be much better to merge the two sections and go by issue. - SimonP 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Object - Should undergo a Peer Review first. -maclean25 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Object - I agree with SimonP's reasoning. The article contains interesting facts but should be rewritten in a more encyclopedia-like style. Mwalcoff 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
