Self-nom; it seems to fit all of the FLC criteria, and the animated map of all of the changes is doing well on FPC so I figured I'd put its 'parent article' on FLC. :) It lacks individual citations because the one reference link at the end contains all of the information; thanks to the Atlas of Canada, all of this info was available from one place. --
Golbez10:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose (for now): Main problem is the
lead, which is too short, and not very useful. The opening sentence "This is a list of the evolution of the borders of Canada" to me implies the list is about Canada's external borders only. Further, this is a timeline, rather than just a list, and the lead should reflect that. I also suggest including some basic information about Canada's provinces and territories and mentioning the difference between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Canada. Also, given that the key on the images cannot be seen in the timeline, you should include a key somewhere near the top (see
List of Alberta general elections for an example). Having said all that, the content of the timeline is sound and well-referenced (although rather concise), so I see no reason why this won't become a FL after the lead has been dealt with.
Tompw (
talk)
12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I added a key (simply a crop of one of the maps, until I or someone can make a table for the colors) and made the lead a little better. --
Golbez13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I still feel that the lead is insufficient - two sentences just doesn't cut it. An article like this should be able to get a least a paragraph. Mention things like the pre-Dominion history (Quebec was originally French, but got annexed by GB; everythign else came from various (ex-)British colonies/dominions), something about the province of Canada and why it got replaced, the difference between provicnes and territroies, the fact that Canada obtained its present borders in 1949... you get the idea.
I've added a little more to the intro, and along the way found an error in the text. Also expanded the second entry in the list. Let me know what you think. --
Golbez18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: I really like the maps, but it should be noted that the
Manitoba article says Rupert's Land was transfered to Canada in 1869, one year before the creation of the province of Manitoba. --
Mwalcoff14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
According to
Rupert's Land Act of 1868 - "The transfer occurred in 1869 and was consummated in 1870 by the payment of a consideration of £300,000.00 to the Hudson's Bay Company, as mandated by the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order of 1870." In other words, I guess the transfer was 'consummated' simultaneous with the creation of Manitoba, and that was the date used by the Atlas of Canada, which is where I obtained most of my information. I don't think it's worth a change to the list, but it's certainly worth a note. Thanks! --
Golbez23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Seems to meet all aspects of
WP:WIAFL. I was at first leary of the lack of inline citations, but since the information is a) cited to a single source and b) likely to be uncontroversial. Other than that, this looks like a feature quality list. Good job! --
Jayron32|
talk|
contribs20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I agree with the previous comments. A similar approach could well be applied to other countries, in which case a uniform bench-mark standard should be applied. --
JohnArmagh12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply