Talk:Disallowance and reservation in Canada

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disallowance and reservation in Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kwkintegrator (talk · contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Reviewer's comment: I am highly satisfied this reaches GA criteria. I have minor suggestions I will place in the main article talk page, but this was a pleasure to read. It isn't lost on me that this is a difficult and abstract topic, and it has been wrangled about as well as I can imagine to be accessible to a general audience. Excellent work on illustration, I would encourage use of descriptive image alt-text in future. I will finally note that an inherent weakness in this article may be the lack of non-book sources, as I know many Wikipedia users enjoy being linked out to something accessible for further reading, but with a link to La Forest's book, I'm satisfied the sources are reputable.Kwkintegrator (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions Arising from GA Review

@Caddyshack01, congratulations on all your work and on this article becoming a Good Article.

I'd like to point to some suggestions, which, while I didn't find were preclusive of passing for GA, you might want to consider making to the article.

1) In section 4.1, the way the paragraphs are structured, the four categories for disallowance are listed twice, and with this section being long, it might be nice if you could rewrite it in such a way that would remove the need for citing La Forest's synthesis of the four reasons, and reference Macdonald's OIC/categorizations on a standalone basis.

2) Also in 4.1, the last paragraph, starting with "Shortly after Confederation" is on the harder to understand side, especially the start of the paragraph speaking about Royal instructions. The article may benefit from taking a second crack at making it understandable to a wide audience.

3) In 4.2, you reference "removal property right" with regard to piloting logs and fee collection on logs. I found this difficult to understand, and explaining the particulars of the case a little differently (possibly by adding a sentence or two) would help illuminate why it led to disallowance.

4) Also in 4.2, you mention an uptick in petitions for disallowance. Clarifying who made these petitions and why (business similar to the logs, or appeals to societal injustice) would add a level of information valuable to the reader.

5) I made reference to alt-text in the GA review, please disregard my comment there, I subsequently reviewed WP:ALT and realized I incorrectly assumed you had a duplicated caption and alt-text. I see now that this isn't the case.

Best, Kwkintegrator (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Kwkintegrator, thank you for taking the time to complete the GA review! I am glad that it met the standards for a GA. I will look at your suggestions and the article over the next two weeks and see how they can be incorporated. Thanks again! - Caddyshack01 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)