Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parliament Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Parliament Act
Self-nomination. The German version of this article is a featured article (or the equivalent), I believe, on the German Wikipedia, so I decided to try to bring this up to quality (along with many others). Morwen - Talk 12:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Where are the other main articles relating to this article? Where are the WikiSources regarding to this article? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Erm, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which "other main articles"? If you mean separate articles on Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, this article deals with both - it would not make much sense to deal with them separately. Which WikiSources? Even if you mean copies of the Acts (which are subject to Crown copyright), can the absence of WikiSource material be an objection? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- These are not objections, just a comment. I would think that there would be a copy of the text at WikiSource, so that is why I questioned if there was. Also, typically, under sections which have their own article, I normally see something like:
- Main article: Parliament Act 1911
- -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are just redirects to this article! It would be very odd to therefore have the behaviour you propose. Re WikiSource, the Acts are Crown Copyright and therefore I believe uploading to WikiSource not allowed. Morwen - Talk 07:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is a shame that these two articles are just redirects - it'd be nice to have a main article on each which expands on what a mixed article can provide. Keep in mind that in 1911 parliamentarians had no idea that another act would be made 38 years later. --Oldak Quill 13:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please go ahead if you think there is enough material to write separate articles on both of them, but I think this article deals quite adequately with them in detail and in combination. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is a shame that these two articles are just redirects - it'd be nice to have a main article on each which expands on what a mixed article can provide. Keep in mind that in 1911 parliamentarians had no idea that another act would be made 38 years later. --Oldak Quill 13:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are just redirects to this article! It would be very odd to therefore have the behaviour you propose. Re WikiSource, the Acts are Crown Copyright and therefore I believe uploading to WikiSource not allowed. Morwen - Talk 07:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- These are not objections, just a comment. I would think that there would be a copy of the text at WikiSource, so that is why I questioned if there was. Also, typically, under sections which have their own article, I normally see something like:
- Erm, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which "other main articles"? If you mean separate articles on Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, this article deals with both - it would not make much sense to deal with them separately. Which WikiSources? Even if you mean copies of the Acts (which are subject to Crown copyright), can the absence of WikiSource material be an objection? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but I've also written large chunks of it, so an outside view would be appreciated. The German version, for comparison, is at de:Parliament Act, and has some flow diagrams: if someone can copy and translate them, that would be great. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support; I don't particularly like the flow diagrams on the German Wikipedia, TBH. James F. (talk) 12:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at translating it, but ended up agreeing with you. I think the prose explanation is sufficient. Morwen - Talk 20:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough - my only reason for mentioning it is that the Parliament Acts are rather hard to illustrate. I suppose a scan of the front page of one of the Acts would be good, although the image of the Palace of Westminster and the people involved do the job for now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at translating it, but ended up agreeing with you. I think the prose explanation is sufficient. Morwen - Talk 20:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- SupportVery comprehensive and well explained. Giano 13:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sceptical as to its completeness - particularly as all references are online. Is Erskine-May silent on it? What about what constitutional experts say on the Acts? (Also, though I don't object on this point, isn't the article name wrong - since it's about 2 Acts - the 1911 and 1949 ones?) The article appears to dwell too much on question marks (now resolved) about the 1949 Act. It would also be interesting to have more about the "money bills" provisions, particularly it is only in recent years that the House of Lords has taken upon itself to constitute a Special Subcommittee on each year's Finance Bill, jguk 22:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks: good objections, although I should have thought publications from Parliament and published court judgments (included in the online references) should be authoritative enough. I'm sure that Erskine May will have something to say. I'll see what I can turn up from the books (there are some journal references in the judgments too). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support, would be good to expand on the subject of payments to MPs as this is a controversial topic which I hadn't realised the 1911 act introduced. Warofdreams 12:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. In articles like this, where the connections of the illustrations to the article are rather tenuous, the image captions need to do a better job of explaining the connection (see Wikipedia:Captions). For example, the portrait of Lloyd George could be captioned "The Parliament Act 1911 was passed to enable Asquith's Liberal government of 1908–1916 to push through Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George's land tax." (But I think the length of that caption shows that the connection is a little bit too tenuous. A picture of Asquith would be better.) Gdr 12:51, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
