Hello, I am the creator of this article and I am requesting a peer review. I was hoping that at some point in the near future I could escalate the article to a FAR. Octopus-Hands 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe we've met. :) You mean an FAC, not FAR. Anyway, here are some suggestions:
The article currently focuses on simply listing the aims of the SDSC. There are many more kinds of information required to give a complete view of the topic:
What is the history of the SDSC? For how long has it been in effect? When was it first proposed? And by whom? Is the SDSC the result of a law that has been made? If not, who enacted these directives?
The implementation of the SDSC is somewhat vague. What is actually being done at the national, provincial, and local levels?
There are a lot of very short sections. Some of them may be merged together. This will make the table of contents shorter.
Does the concept of the SDSC have its critics?
The only sources used in the article are the official websites of the Canadian government. This means only one perspective is given in the article.
In fact, a lot of the material seems copied directly from the Government websites, with the wording changed only a little.
Has there been press coverage of the SDSC?
As I mentionned, this is a very strong first effort, but it will need to take a much broader view in order to become a featured article. Andrew Levine 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look there are a few things which stood out to me.
Picture is too big and crowds screens, and I am not what it has to do with the topic.
Too many sections. Most are only one paragraph. These need to be combined into a simpler structure.
I did not see a section on any oppositon to this program.Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
