Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Parliament of Canada components/archive1

Parliament of Canada components

Main page	Articles
Parliament of Canada	Monarchy in Canada - Senate of Canada - Canadian House of Commons

I know that there are hundreds of articles about the Canadian Parliament, but I'm proposing this as a sort of top-level topic that could have other topics beneath it, like how FFX is a member of one topic and the main article of another. As per section IV.17 of the Canadian constitution, the parliament of Canada consists of the Crown, Senate, and House of Commons, so the articles are all related and there are no gaps. The topic has 3 featured articles, and the 4th one is A-class but has been a bit too prone to POV edits to get featured. They are all connected by Template:Politics of Canada and Category:Parliament of Canada. The two houses have the same 11 sub-topics in the same order. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good on the whole. — Deckill er 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support ~~Check over the way you have numbers spelled out, make sure they are uniform throughout the articles, like numbers under 100 being written out rather than just 24, 15, 6, etc.~~ (I just fixed it for you) Other than that they are well written. Darth griz⁹⁸ 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No gaps in the topic, the only non-featured article is an A-class.Retracting my support based on LuciferMorgan's assessment. Jay32183 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record:
- FA: Parliament of Canada, Senate of Canada, Canadian House of Commons
- A-Class: Monarchy in Canada
Comment Monarchy in Canada has a lot of fair use images... is there any way this could be reduced?
Strong oppose All the FA class articles will end up at FAR and be defeatured, and have minimal citations. LuciferMorgan 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just say "the articles will be defeatured". If you think these articles should be listed at WP:FAR, then go ahead and nominate them. The FT process is based on articles' current status, not on their possible future status. Tompw (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is clogged up enough as it is without me nominating more articles, and their current status is that they need inline citations - irrelevant of whether they're FA. LuciferMorgan 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A featured topic is a collection of articles that represents Wikipedia's best work in covering a given subject, comprehensively and with items of consistent quality." Erm no, these collection of articles do not. LuciferMorgan 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that FA articles will soon be listed at FAR has come up a lot. The FA process seems to have serious flaws when apparently half of the already featured articles do not meet FA standards. I agree with Tompw that if these articles really aren't FA, someone ought to nominate them all at FAR. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR can only handle so many articles at a time. Nominating them isn't just what they would have to do - are they going to stay during the review, and give feedback to editors trying to improve the article? Or are they going to do nothing and leave a small handful of regulars to pick up the pieces as usual? LuciferMorgan 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only way you are going to get answers to those questions is to list the article you think isn't up to scratch at FAR. Tompw (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR doesn't work this way, and no matter how much you encourage me to abuse the FAR process I won't. It can handle only so much as I said, so actually listen to what you're being told. LuciferMorgan 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm clearly missing something here. Please tell me just how listing an article you think isn't up to scratch counts as abusing the process. Tompw (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What LuciferMorgan is trying to say is that FAR currently has a backlog so listing any new articles won't get them the attention they deserve. Even if the articles were put into FAR, this FTC would be held up at least two weeks. I'm also thinking that the A-class article has been mis-assessed; it might be a good idea to see if that actually passes a GAC, it hasn't yet. Jay32183 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the 3 FAs are all under- or un-referenced. Whether or not they would fail FAR is besides the point, they are not good enough collectively to be considered a "featured topic" at this time, stars or no stars. --PresN 06:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]