Wikipedia:Peer review/Canada/archive1

Canada

Well, I'm nominating Canada for a peer review. It's a fairly good article, also noted by the good article status which it has received. I wanted to expand on it, but I decided the best way to expand would be to first find out what the thoughts of other Wikipedians are. Not just for myself, but for others so that we can collaborate and get it to FA status. I was using the United States article as a comparison, and one MAJOR section I noticed was Economy. To sum up, the section finishes before it starts. Another rather strange section is History, and Quebec sovereignty movement within it in particular. The former seems a bit brief, while the latter looks out of place.

There are definitely other areas to be improved or added, and that's where you peer reviewers come in. It's a pretty good article thus far. It's already reached FA on a couple of international Wikis, so why not in the English version?

So what do you think? how can we improve this article? ♠ SG →Talk 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less one-paragraph sentences. Some of these can definitely be stitched into proper paragraphs.
LOTS of statements that need citation, e.g "Many Canadian citizens see Canadian culture as based on the policy of multiculturalism, while others see it as based on a predominantly British and French core, with American and new immigrant influences and modifications."
Something needs to be done with "The Canadian government currently supports universal health care, same-sex marriage, and decriminalization of marijuana." Are we talking about the Harper government here? I don't think they favor marijuana decriminalization or same-sex marriage (though they mostly accept the latter as settled by the Supreme Court, a lot of the Conservatives oppose it on principle).
Some pictures I'd expect to see in the article: the Château Frontenac (I like this one), something of Toronto, a photo illustrating official bilingualism (like a French/English sign), and something with wildlife (caribou would be good). Andrew Levine 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. I think with that input alone the article can be improved immensely. Thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]