Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
Useful: Summarises information on seats won from 37 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
Factually accurate: references given.
Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status
(self-nomination) Tompw (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. Excellent as always. Comments:
No need in the messege in the top of the article unless for disambiguation. Besides, this is already mentioned in the lead.
Add a note about the 1890 tie and its result.
Notes or references shouldn't be one space ahead of the text per WP:FN.
...for 1897 or earlier - "and earlier"?
"Number of seats won by major parties at each election" appears twice on the first image caption. Michaelas10(Talk) 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
All done. Tompw (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Still no note about the tie. I believe it would be important to mention it in the notes to avoid confusion. Michaelas10(Talk) 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Missed that one.... On the "1897 and/or earlier" issue, I think either works... I;ve rephrased it as "Vote share not known for the elections in the 19th century." Tompw (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
could the following sentence be made more precise as to exactly what is being referred to: "It was determined in the courts that the variance of electors in these ridings was too great and was therefore unconstitutional." There were not two ridings before one was split. Hmains 04:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re-phrased as "In 1996, a court determined that the number of electors varied too much between ridings, and was therefore unconstitutional. This resulted in a new set of (single-member) ridings being created." Tompw (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - Just as good as Tompw's other featured election lists. --Arctic Gnome 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Don't say "this article", per WP:SELF. Colin°Talk 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the openign sentence "This article provides a summary of results...". WP:SELF states "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project" (italics mine). The article refers to itself, not to Wikipedia. Quoting WP:SELF again: "References which exist in a way which assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia), or the manner of access (online), are acceptable". Hence why I believe the opening sentence is OK. Tompw (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)