Talk:Accurate News and Information Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Alberta / Politicians (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Featured article Accurate News and Information Act is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2010.


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Accurate News and Information Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • You say "drove at least one newspaper out of business". Does the source say which one?
  • The sentence "Says Finkel, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud," needs to have "stated" or "wrote" or something with a colon, if it is the sources of the quote below.
  • Some small copyediting. (fixed)
  • "Ultra vires" needs to be wikilinked. (fixed)

To small matters, and the article will pass as good. Nice work so far :) Arsenikk (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and copyedits. Unfortunately, the source does not name the newspaper, so there's not much I can do there; I think there's value in stating that one was driven out of business, even if we don't know which one, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. On the Finkel quote point, can you explain why this is necessary? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'd just like some explanation of why you're right. Sorry for being a cantankerous fart. Steve Smith (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've read the sentence a dozen times, and I cannot see how it creates a transition between the "finding" and the quote. Or to put it this way: I cannot see how the sentence says that Says Finkel says the quote.
Oh, okay; I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that a colon was required, which doesn't seem right to me, when it's just that my writing was unclear. "Says Finkel, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud," is an inversion of "Finkel says, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud" or, more likely, "Finkel, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud, says". It is a little cutesie, though, so I'll go ahead and change it to something more straightforward. Steve Smith (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good, then we are agreed, and I will pass the article. As always from you, nice work, and if I must say, a rather scary article. I honestly though no-one could dream up introducing such censorship in a "free" country. Arsenikk (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

introductory paragraph[edit]

I find that the first sentences start by giving background instead of stating the outright nature of the act. I believe the background should come later. Frankman (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, actually, and have made some changes: [1] What do you think? Steve Smith (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Act or bill?[edit]

If this never became law, why is it an Act rather than a Bill? jnestorius(talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When bills are drafted, they're given names that include the word "act", notwithstanding that they're not actually acts until passed by the Queen in Parliament. Consider a Wikipedia article about a movie that was never made: if it needed to be disambiguated it would probably be done with "(film)", and over the course of the article it would likely be referred to as "the movie", even though it really doesn't become a movie until there are actual actors and camerafolk involved. Steve Smith (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As well as the title of the article and the name of its subject, there are various references through the text to "the Act" or "the act" rather than "the Bill". If it is the custom in Canada to refer to Bills as Acts, this should be stated and clarified, because it may be confusing for those of us from the UK and Ireland, where this is definitely not the practice.
See for example this article from today's Irish Times about the Civil Partnership Bill, named as such and referred to as "the Bill" in the course of the report. The legislature's webpage on the Bill does likewise. The various drafts begin: "CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL 2009 / BILL entitled AN ACT TO ... 1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Civil Partnership Act 2009...." In other words, although the Bill refers to itself internally as an Act, externally it is referred to as a Bill.
It is true that in the English language, the concepts "completed movie" and "unproduced movie" are both subsumed into the word "movie"; but it is not (necessarily) the case that "act passed into law" and "bill proposed" are both subsumed into "act".
BTW the names of articles in Category:Proposed laws of Canada are mostly with Bill, though some have Act. Most look like still-active proposals, but Canada Well-Being Measurement Bill and Naval Service Bill are not, so I guess the present article belongs in the category too. jnestorius(talk) 22:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the alternative would be calling it Bill 9, which doesn't seem very helpful. As for calling it "the Act" as shorthand, that just follows from the page title. Steve Smith (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't. You could start
The Accurate News and Information Act was a Bill ....
and then continue "the bill"... jnestorius(talk) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)