Talk:Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

GA

The article is short, but I believe sufficient.

• It is well written.
• It is factually accurate.
• It is broad in its coverage.
• It follows the neutral point of view policy.
• It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars
• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. (No great possibilities for images in this article)

Visit the criterias at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Bring your own chair.

Possible areas of improvement:

• I find it peculiar to have a section ("Text") consisting of two sentences. I believe it should be put in the lead.
• The text is heavy in parts and should be loosened up for clarity.
• Should all instances of Charter be in italics? I must check it up.

Fred-Chess 17:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it is short, I've been looking madly for more info. There appears to be no literature on how the Charter got its name in the first place. Anyway, Charter is a name italicized in law. I'm not sure what you mean by "text is heavy in parts and should be loosened up for clarity." How can text be heavy? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy = dense.

I am specifically thinking about the "History" section, which appears to be a collection of interweaved quotes (!? Not reader friendly). Sentences such as Thus, it seemed to imply the Charter of Rights was not a radical constitutional change, despite the fact that Canada was a constitutional monarchy that abruptly decided to establish a constitutional bill of rights. might be totally clear to you, but to me it requires me to scratch my head more than I'd like to on a Sunday.

Another thing I didn't specifically mention (although I did write it, but decided to leave it out because I couldn't pinpoint exactly how to fix it), is that the structure of the article could be significantly improved. The "Text" section is misplaced, the "Function" section contains information that doesn't strike me as being directly related to a section with this name (such as the paragraph starting with "Canadian poet George Elliott Clarke once analyzed section 34"). And indeed, the first paragraph of the section "Function" could even be put in the lead section.

Almost makes me wonder why I even passed the article. :-) But I did it because I think scarse material makes structuring difficult.

Fred-Chess 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put that in the lead- it's supposed to summarize the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but the way it was written, it was virtually part of the lead anyways, albeit with its own heading. I don't know how to structure it best -- I consider that to be your task to figure out -- but I do think it was badly structured. Do something about it, or not. I have already passed the article as a GA.

It may well be that the text of the Charter should be in its own section. But if so, the French translation of it should be in the same section.

Sorry to come with even more complaints at this stage, but I want to add to my comment of dense wording with complaining about the many quotation marks that makes the text harder to read.

Fred-Chess 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did do something about it. I'm not sure if you're saying it still needs restructuring. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Section Thirty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has undergone a reassessment as part of the GA sweeps performed by the Good Article Project Quality taskforce in order to ensure that it still meets the requirements for Good Article status. The article needed only minor work (updated dead external links in references, very minor copyedits, and a little expansion of the lead). I made the necessary fixes myself and am satisfied that the article meets the current GA criteria. It is short, but I don't see that much more can be said about a single sentence in a constitutional document. With that said, I found the interpretations of Clarke and Hogg interesting, and I thought the information about the proposed change in 1994 was explained very well.

I am closing this reassessment as keep.