Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Commonwealth of Nations/archive1

Commonwealth of Nations

Not a self-nom. Nicely written, comprehensive article with a good set of external links. --ashwatha 20:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support Interesting read indeed. Squash 20:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Pmeisel 16:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Leaving the uses and benefits info til the end held my interest, as I always wondered why so many nations want to be part of this (largely) ceremonial entity. One suggestion: I would prefer to have the governance section come before all the stuff about membership/suspension/expulsion, since in the current sequence it is not clear just who are these "Heads of Government" who are able to boot out and readmit members. Sfahey 18:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This looks pretty good, but 1) The list of members of the commonwealth is split off, expect for the previous members. This is silly; why not put these four nations there as well. Mentioning the suspended nations while there are non is also not necessary. 2) The "Non-governmental links" section and "Culture" partially overlap, and should probably be combined. 3) I think some statements need to be references. E.g. "The Commonwealth has often been likened to an English gentlemen's club". In addition, some more reference (if used) or further reading would be appreciated. 4) The lead section should be modified. It does not explain the purpose/goal of the Commonwealth. In contrast, the discussion of the head of state is not relevant for the lead section, and should be incorporated somewhere in the main article. Jeronimo 19:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I made changes to address the above in the article; basically, fixed the list of members, merged non-governmental links and culture, gave reference to club comment, fixed lead section. Please take a look. --ashwatha 15:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support--ZayZayEM 06:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A good article, close to a FAC. Few minor points and one major. Minor: 1) some more ilinks wouldn't hurt 2) More printed references, better formated (publisher, date) 3) move the odd 1 or 2 external links either to notes or external links away from the main article body. Major: Article mentions in lead that Commonwealth of Nations was created from the British Commonwealth, but gives no year for this. In addition, British Commonwealth article redirects here, so I am left to wonder whether the date givin in origins (1920s and the Imperial Conferences) is the date for the creation of the BC or the transformation of BC into CoN. In addition, Imperial Conference article makes the British EMPIRE a successor to the Commonwealth - confusing, confusing...I'll support after those issues are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I provided a few more printed references. Added them in "Further Reading," since I haven't used them for the article itself.
• Added Publisher and date to all references.
• Regarding date of formation, User:ALoan has clarified this in the article, thanks. The organisation was formed from the imperial conferences of the 1920s, and was formalised in 1931 (see article).
• "British Commonwealth" and "Commonwealth of Nations" are one and the same. The change in nomenclature has just occured gradually, with the "British" being dropped. This is the reason for "British Commonwealth" being redirected here.
• Moved the one external link in the article body to "External Links".
• I checked the Imperial Conf article, but it doesn't say anywhere that the Empire was the successor of the commonwealth. If it did, it had the wrong info.
• ilinks - I see that you added some. At the moment, it seems to have quite a few. Please take a look. I will add some more if they are necessary. --ashwatha 02:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)