Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canada

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada[edit]

Over the past couple months a lot of work has been done on the Canada article to improve it. Specifically, sections were shorted to bring it into summary style, subheadings were removed. First references were found, and then to be more specific inline footnotes have been added. At this point I think the page is ready to be nominated. The only concern that people may bring up which I want to address beforehand is that the general references (which are like further reading, and back up the uncontroversial statements in the text) are included in a subpage. The reason for this is two-fold. One is that there is a large amount of references, which in combination with the footnotes would make the bottom of the text very long. Secondly, the references are divided up into the sections they back up, so that the interested reader can find what they are looking for easily. This would however, make the table of contents on the first page overly long and complicated, so the decision was to place it in a subpage. I hope that even with this slight aberation from the manual of style, the page will still be looked at in a meaningful way. -- Jeff3000 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 35KB of prose as of 20 May 2006

  • Support - The subpage for references doesn't bother me at all - in fact, I almost prefer that method. Accessible if people are interested, but not overwhelming. One minor criticism - is there any way to make the font on the table listing the provinces/territories any larger? It's a bit hard to read at its current size. (Just so I won't be accused of hidden biases: Yes, I am a Canadian citizen. I haven't let that colour my judgement. (Note the Canadian spelling of "colour.")) The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per The Disco King. Ardenn 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I don't really like the references as a subpage; perhaps another way to solve it would be to put it in a show/hide section (I agree that it would make the article unwieldy if all these references were to be put directly into the article). Jon Harald Søby 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is some sort of error in the infobox when viewed in Opera 8.5. --Maitch 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just fixed this. I don't normally use Opera, but I do have it installed, and I think the formatting problem is gone. -- Jeff3000 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, however some things I noticed:
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.


  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "International rankings". (I'm not too sure what I was originally thinking about...)
  • Footnote #6 is messed up
  • AndyZ, I'm a little confused the page already has extensive footnotes, specifically 38 of them. Also which lists are you referring to, the only list was the Canadian provinces, which has just been removed after much discussion. I'll fix the categories and interwiki links. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch... what am I doing? Those were erronous comments. AndyZ t 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad again, I just realized what I originally meant. AndyZ t 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok I've fixed the categories and the interwiki links, added a fair use rationale for the only fair use image, converted the International rankings in a table (like South Africa, which is the only featured article with International rankings), fixed footnote #6. The article already uses footnotes extensively with cite.php, and uses the cite book, cite web, and cite journal for all of those inline references to have them formatted correctly. -- Jeff3000 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The lead is divided into too many paragraphs. Perhaps 3 paragraphs will suffice. Single sentences should not be divided into paragraphs. The name section needs to be retitled and needs to be expanded. Also, the holiday section needs to be expanded. As mentioned above, I also don't like the idea of the references being on another page. They should be added into the main article. I'll add more comments later. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The lead paragraphs have been merged. The name section has been expanded and retitled. The holiday section has been expanded. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abstain for now. My initial concerns have been dealt with, but I have not yet read through the entire article yet to support. Pepsidrinka 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional vote Great read and very good use of Wikipedia:Summary style. However, the non-standard use of a "subpage" for references is a violation of the MOS and thus also counter to WP:WIAFA. Consider my vote to be a Support if that "subpage" is not used by this article and the references are kept where they should be (in the ==References== section) and consider this an Oppose if that "subpage" is used by this article. --mav 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has made a LOT of improvement recently. Though, as a Canada enthusiast, I find it a little too simple in places, and I feel that the economy section may be slightly too, this would still make a good featured article. The Halo (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The references issue has been fixed and it all looks good to go. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 01:58 UTC
  • Support Two caveats. The history section HAS TO include the admission of the western provinces ... Alberta and Sskchwn just "show up" in the text as if they were always there. Also, the military section is way overlinked. As important as they are, KFOR, Haiti, and the Second Boer War among others are not relevant to Canada per se. It bugs me much when armchair Wiki-critics say "change this" and "change that", but I made many edits myself en route to supporting this nice article, so I feel justified in asking for a couple more. Sfahey 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've just added how Manitoba, Alberta and Sasketewan came into confederation, and simplified the Military section as suggested. -- Jeff3000 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hooray for Canada! Your capital city is as boring as hell, but other than that, I have no complaints Bwithh 04:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Some aspects of the article are fine, but the prose of the whole article needs a good run-through before Criterion 2a is satisfied. Let's look at the lead, for example, in which nearly every sentence needs surgery.
    • "Canada is a country occupying most of the northern portion of North America, and is the world's second largest country in total area." The opening sentence should be perfect; it's not. "Country" appears twice; "occupying" is just a little awkward (sounds temporary); just what is the northern portion of North America of which Canada occupies most? This is an unhelpful concept here. "Total" is redundant. You may consider this instead: "Canada is the world's second largest country in area, and occupies the larger part of North America."
    • "Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples". Originally, no one inhabited it. Reword.
    • "Canada peacefully obtained sovereignty from its last colonial possessor, Britain, in a process beginning in 1867 with its formation". I'm unsure that the move towards sovereignty was always actively at Canada's behest, as implied by the first four words. "Colonial possessor" is clumsy. The referent of the second "its" is not immediately clear. "Beginning" and "began" are OK in the lead, but are overused in subsequent sections.
    • "Canada is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Its head of state is its monarch, who is represented in Canada by the Governor General." Again, "its" is fuzzy, so make it "The". Why are we being coy about the identity of the monarch here? (Only later is this clarified.)
    • Canada defines itself as a bilingual and multicultural nation." "is" would be better than "defines itself as".
    • "Canada began to adopt policies based on the concepts of cultural diversity and multiculturalism."

You finish the lead by telling us that Canada is "technologically advanced", but detract from this in the rest of the paragraph ("a net exporter of energy because of its large fossil fuel deposits", "an abundance of natural resources").

I have other qualms about constitutional, legal and economic matters that I'll return to at a later stage in this process. Tony 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've interpolated my further responses in brown. Tony 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've interpolated my new comments in blue after Tony's comments inbrown -- Jeff3000 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with most of what Tony has commented on. The wording is for the most part is not awkward and portrays some finer points that are discussed in the rest of the article. Rewording the setences would take away from their wider meaning. For example, the sentence "Canada defines itself as a bilingual and multicultural nation." could be replaced by "is", but that's not the point; the point of the sentence is that not only "is" Canada bilingual and multicultural, but it's citizens see the bilingilism and multiculturalism as a very strong point. That distinction is a little too subtle without further explanation on the spot; is the distinction worth making right at the top? I was suggesting a plainer, stronger statement (one that you might enlarge on later). Please get "its" correct in your writing here. (and BTW this is referenced). The fact that it's "referenced" means nothing in deciding on this point. -- Jeff3000 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC) That this is subtle is your opinion. It is verifiable and correct.[reply]
  • Comment - I've looked into this further, and I really could just fix two of Tony's comments (the one related to "the concepts" of diversity ..., and the lead sentence). I'm going to address the other comments here:
  • I've used your suggested sentence as the structure as the new lead sentence, but your suggested sentence is also not correct. Canada would not occupy the larger part of North America. Greenland and the US would be larger than Canada. Given that Canada is seen as the land of the north, the "northern portion" is just fine, and is described later in the article. I'd never thought of Greenland (which, as a Danish territory, is part of the EU) as being part of North America; however, your revised opening sentence is much better. Greenland as a landmass is geographically part of North America, political subdivisions have nothing to do with.
  • An original inhabitant means the first to inhabit a region (and not if it was inhabited from day one). The First Nations people (aboriginals) where the first to inhabit the region of current-day Canada. Yes, quite right, but that's not what you say: "Originally inhabited" means something quite different from "original inhabitants", of course. Reword. fixed
  • Regardless if sovereignty was "actively" pursued or not (which I can argue it was) the statement is correct. You mean "regardless of whether", do you? Did Canada actively lobby for the development of the Statute of Westminster? And furthermore, was the Manitoba Act (and the British Columbia Incorporation Act of 1867, which you fail to mention) the result of New World lobbying? British Columbia and Manitoba have nothing to do with it, they were brought into confederation later. The process towards to complete Canadian sovereignty started in 1867 with three provinces (colonies) meeting at three conferences and asking for more soveignty. The fact that these conferences were held is active participation. Furthermore Canada, through Pierre Trudeau's goverment, actively pursued the Canada act to remove any remaining influence by the British Parliament.
  • The reason why the monarch is not mentioned in the lead is because the specific monarch is temporal. While right now it's Queen Elizabeth II, the specific monarch does not define the political system of Canada (and has no real power), and should not be mentioned in the lead. Yet you name the current prime minister, who's been in office for only a few months, as opposed to half a century. If the Queen has no real power, why is it that the article on the Governor General of Canada says that "The Queen does retain all executive power and her Royal Prerogative", and that, for example, she has the explicit power to change the number of seats in the Canadian Senate? The fact that "she very rarely personally intervenes in Canadian politics" is irrelevant - she retains that power. Many Australians got a rude shock when their GG used what were supposed to be "reserve powers" to dismiss the federal government in 1975; the principal is the same. Believe me, the Queen can exercise real power in Canada, even if she doesn't typically do so, and you should not assert that she can't.You are jumping in a conflict without knowing. There are monarchist and anti-monarchist editors on the Canada article. Naming the monarchy in the lead, but not the current head was an agreement that was made.
  • Using the word "Canada" to replace the first "its" would be using two many "Canadas". Yes, of course it would; this is why I suggested "The". fixed
  • I've commented on this one above. Canada both "is" and "defines" itself as bilingual and ...
  • I've fixed this one.
  • Being technologically advanced does not mean that one can not be a source of primary material. These are not opposites, and both are true in Canada's case. In fact Canada is one of the few developed nations that is a net exporter of energy. No, the problem here is that it's jumbled; if you assert that Canada is technologically advanced at the start of the paragraph, we expect a little enlargement on this first. Then you can make the point that it's a major exporter of .... At the moment, the technological statement is superficial. The lead is already too long. Any explanation of technologically advanced can not be made in a single sentence, but its removal would not be appropriate either.
-- Jeff3000 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A note on "actively" pursuing sovereignty: The Statute of Westminster was a law that affirmed the Balfour Declaration's earlier statement of the equality of the Dominions and the UK within the Commonwealth. The Balfour Declaration was introduced by Canada's Prime Minister. The original British North America Act was almost entirely conceived, negotiated, and written by Canadians. --thirty-seven 18:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Second largest country in the world, very interesting geography and culture, very well presented article. What more do you want? Kingfisherswift 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose why is langauge a separate section from demgraphics when language is a demographic measure? Demographics should have a measure of average educational achievement. I would prefer to see international ranking worked into the text, rather than have them in a box at the end. Comment most recently featured countires don't have the holiday section, do people think this adds much to an article?--Peta 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The holidays section is included since it is a recommendation of the countries wikiproject. As for the language, as already mentioned by Matt Deres, language is a very important feature in Canada, given it's history, and it's current makeup. Just as Australia has some sections which are not in the wikiproject that are important for it (like Fauna), language in Canada is important enough for the Canada article to have it's own section. -- Jeff3000 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language section is not particularly concise and would be better merged into the demographics, being officially bilinual isn't a feature exclusive to Canada. The demographic section is rather brief without it. Recently featured country articles without holidays and rankings include Bangladesh, Nauru, and Pakistan.--Peta 06:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment I think the article as it stands now easily meets the FAC criteria. With regards to Peta's comment above, the language issue is a complicated one in Canada and that portion of the article does deserve its own heading. Perhaps a small expansion that touched on some of the sore spots many anglophones (and francophones) have for one another. Consider, for example, the bilingualism controversy in the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario article. Matt Deres 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I agree that this article has received a lot of attention over the past couple months, and that it has indeed improved, but I do not think it has reached a stage where it satisfies the criteria. I agree with Tony's points about the introduction. In my opinion it flows poorly (too many short sentences) and does not summarise Canada adequetely (lacks broad perspective, and delves un-necessarily into particular areas best left to the article proper - especially multiculturalism). The history section is far too excessive for an article supposedly written in summary. In the foreign relations and military section, I think some statements should be directly sourced: who cites the Suez Crisis as an example of Canadian multilateralism? who suggests that public debate will spur a greater peacekeeping role? While I agree with Peta that language is a measure of demographics, and I would prefer it to be subsumed into that section, I am also fine with it remaining separate. However, there is no mention of education in demographics, and there should be. Finally, the holidays section should be cut, if for no other reason than because the article is rather large. The sections I haven't mentioned are good. --cj | talk 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You state that it lacks broad perspective, and give no specific examples, how are we to improve it. You state that multiculturalism should not be stated, but it is a defining part of Canadian culture, and needs to be in the intro. The history section is just 18% than the Australia history section. I've fixed the remaining objections by finding a citation for the Lester Pearson statement, removing the statement on public debate (I don't know when that got it), removing the holidays section. I'm working on finding the education statistics. -- Jeff3000 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - A paragraph on education has been added. -- Jeff3000 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for remedying those concerns. However, I still feel that the introduction is lacking and that the history section is too long. Firstly on the introduction: I feel the best examples that the Canada article should follow are Australia and Pakistan. In the introductions to those articles, there are three elements I think make for good introductions. The first paragraph of the introduction provides locational context - what its geography is, who its neighbours are. The second paragraph gives an historical overview - this is essentially what the initial paragraph of the Canada intro does. And finally, the third paragraph is left for societal details - what its political system is (without the detail of the present intro), what its social characteristics are (bilingualism/multiculturalism and perhaps even primary production). With the history section, it needs a going over by someone knowledgeable in Canadian history and narrowed/refocused on only vital events and trimed elsewhere.--cj | talk 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentThanks for the guidance. I've changed the intro to follow the style you indicated. In regards to the history, I've tried to keep it short, stating summary style (see Talk:Canada#Recent_history), but many editors feel there are significant events that need to be there, thus giving it's current length. -- Jeff3000 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The introduction is much better. I'll consider supporting now.--cj | talk 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well referenced, well written. Phoenix2 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ditto the above. --HappyCamper 18:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I already voted "Support". Most of the several items I observed that needed work ... I fixed. I don't agree with most of Tony's objections, or expectations. Also, he writes "'You' finish the lead by ..." as if one person wrote the dang thing. This is supposed to be a team effort, right? Sfahey 02:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sfahey, did you know that 'you' is singular and plural in English?
With respect to your monarchist/antimonarchist trizzing: no one could be more anti-monarchist than I am. It's an insult to intelligent people to retain a symbol for inherited wealth and power in the 21st century, and the fact that it's a foreign head is pure embarrassment. However, that's not the point here. If the head of state is mentioned in the lead at all, it should be clearly referred to and should not beg questions in the reader's mind. Whatever deal you've struck among yourselves about coyly tipping your hats to the existence of a monarch, but refusing to identify her, is a half-baked and quite unsatisfactory solution. If you're still bickering about it, don't mention the head of state at all in the lead: just in the section on government. For heaven's sake, there's lots about the structure of governance that you don't mention in the lead. Tony 07:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, and I think the way it is currently is just perfect. It shows the political system, but doesn't go into too much detail with the current physical person. It was decided upon, and your input will not change consensus. I will not be changing it. Keep your vote oppose. -- Jeff3000 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry, I won't be changing my oppose. And I haven't critiqued the rest of the text, yet. See you soon. Tony 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and crtique, but I would also take Sfahey's lead and also spend time improving the article. Notice how he actually went into the article, and made grammatical changes to make it better. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to allow; I would gather that you would spend more time writing out your critiques on this page with fancy colours than it would take to actually fix the supposed grammatical problems you have with the text. -- Jeff3000
Yeah, it does waste a lot of time when I have to engage in squabbles in this room. No, I won't edit the article (certainly not after experiencing your recalcitrant attitude), but I'll assist by critiqueing in the hope that you can raise the text to the required standard. Then I'll be quite prepared to support the nomination. Tony 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I haven't agreed with all your recommendations, doesn't make me recalcitrant. Indeed, out of your six suggestions, I have implemented four of them (66%). I rather think that you are a little stubborn in thinking that all your suggestions have to implemented, and that your understanding of Canadian politics is the understanding. Again, I invite you to spend your time changing and improving the article. -- Jeff3000 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to note, that I have implemented every other actionable change suggested by everyone on this page, except for merging the demographics and language section. They include:
  • Name section expanded, and renamed
  • Holiday section, first expanded, and then removed
  • A paragraph on education added
  • Noted how Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatechewan entered into confederation
  • Fixed categories, interwiki, fair use images
  • Fixed style of International Rankings
  • Included the references in the page, rather than a subpage
  • Shortening of Military section, and less linking
  • Provided a reference for the Suez canal statement, and removed another statement that couldn't be referenced regarding peacekeeping
  • 4 of 6 suggestions by Tony.
I don't think that this is a stubborn attitude. --
  • Calling reviewers "stubborn" because they defend their critiques of your text is not going to get you anywhere. If you were not defensive in your attitude to the review process, and set out to learn a few things about preparing a text such as this, it would be much more productive. Tony 07:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note among other things recalcitrant means stubborn, and you called me that first (yes this is a little childish, but I won't stand for you misrepresenting me); you are the one that is judging my attitude by stating that I am recalcitrant and have a defensive attitude. In fact the discussions show that I am not recalcitrant or defensive; particularly, I've agreed to virtually every change by every editor (almost always immediatly), so where is the defensive and stubborn attitude. I have just disagreed with some of your statements regarding the "active" process towards sovereignty and that the name of the monarch has to appear in the lead (because of consensus made in the talk page) and I stand my those non-changes, as indicated by another Canadian editor who has commented on this page. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text has been improved significantly over the past few days. However, more editing is required, including the following matters. In particular, there's a lot of redundant wording.
I've started fixing the issues, and comments regarding if it's fixed or not is in blue-- Jeff3000 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third sentence now says: "Canada shares land borders with the contiguous United States to the south and with Alaska to the northwest." Isn't Alaska contiguous with Canada (whereas Hawaii is not)? If "contiguous" is a standard term that excludes Alaska, this won't be clear to many readers; a more widely understood wording would be preferable.Continuous US is a US term meaning the 48 states that are continugous. If someone doesn't know what that means, the wikilink is there.
    • "at the Treaty of Paris"—query the preposition. I don't know what this means
    • "brought along European diseases"—Can "along" be removed?fixed
    • "including building a sense of unity and nationalism"—to avoid ing ing, possibly "including the building of"; are both epithets required (unity and nationalism)? If so, unity of whom? fixed
    • Since the War of 1812 is not explained, the "long-term peace between Canada and the United States" comes as a surprise. Readers should not have to visit the link to explain the term in retrospect. fixed
    • The link to "Conscription" should not have an upper-case C. It should be piped so that conscription is the only blue word (doesn't make sense at the moment). fixed
    • Spell out CCF.fixed
    • "the two countries continue to share the same Monarch"—Why upper-case M? Why not just "both countries share a monarch"?fixed
    • "Economic integration with the United States increased after 1940, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 a defining moment." These two statements are awkward jammed into the one sentence, even though they are connected.fixed
    • There's talk of the House of Commons in passing before we're appraised of the basic structure of the parliament (Queen, Senate, HOC). I think it needs to be there to explain who the Prime Minister is
    • A constitutional lawyer would advise removing "always" from "the Governor General always, by convention, respects the Prime Minister's choices".fixed
    • "The Cabinet is traditionally drawn from members of the Prime Minister's party in both legislative houses, though mostly from the Commons." Here, "though" should not be used, because it doesn't contradict the previous statement.fixed
    • "Executive power is exercised"—ex ex better avoided in "compelling, even brilliant" prose, as required.couldn't find a better synonym, it's the best word
    • "The Prime Minister exercises a great deal of individual political power, especially ..."—Is "individual" necessary here?fixed
    • When we do get to the houses, "the elected House of Commons and the appointed Senate" should be "an" ... "an" (see the Constitution). Likewise, "a "riding" or electoral district", not "one". fixed
    • "none have"—ungrammatical: "has".fixed
    • "selected and appointed by the Governor General"—You're kidding me? Remove "selected and".fixed, was a recent addition yesterday
    • "federal cabinet also appoints"—redundant "also".fixed
    • "Over the last 60 years"—what, before the end of the world? You mean "past". Likewise, "For the last decade" and "the last century".fixed
    • "Coastal British Columbia is an exception and it enjoys"—pick the redundant word.fixed
    • "as resources centred in Alberta, but also present in neighbouring British Columbia"—"but" must contradict the previous statement; it doesn't here.fixed
    • "sectory"?fixed
    • "has maintained the best overall economic performance in the G8"—needs a "since [year]". it's there, since 2001
    • "Each of the 13 education systems, while similar, reflect"—ungrammatical.fixed
    • "Postsecondary education is also the responsibility of the provincial and territorial governments who provide most of their funding"—Remove "also"; "who" is a problem.fixed
    • "had some post-secondary education"—Remove "some".fixed
    • "commensurate"—Why not just "equal"?I believe that's the official wording
    • "Non-official languages are also important in Canada"—Are you really telling us that, oh, by the way, the official languages are important? Get rid of "also".fixed
    • Pic of mounted policeman is a dud; he's ignoring us .... can't you find a better one?Long searches have already been made, no good mounty picture that is GFDL, see Archive 8 of the Canada talk page.
    • A few more commas required in the "Culture" section, for precision and ease of reading.fixed
    • Comment -- The Mountie image also allows us to mention Expo 1967 in its caption. It's a shame that you dislike the composition. Jkelly 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'tis a little odd. Tony 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canada&oldid=1052455919"