Talk:Canadian news doesn't interest Prime Minister, prefers to watch American

image is blurry

image is blurry and some people wont know who that is. Seabanks (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

added a caption Sherurcij 14:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

I'd suggest we use either File:Stephen Harpers True Colours.png or File:Harper with American Flag.PNG for relevance to the article, rather than a standard biopic. Sherurcij 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like File:Stephen Harpers True Colours.png. Not only is half the picture obscured by what seems to be a blurry flag, but Harper is barely recognisable. I can't see much more than his nose and forehead. File:Harper with American Flag.PNG is better, although I still think that the file photo i chose, File:Stephen Harper G8 2007.jpg, is better. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated to the one that makes neither of us happy ;) Sherurcij 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 901633 [Failed]

Revision 901633 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Often criticised for his sympathies for American causes like the War on Terror, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew scorn this week = a bit POV Style: Not ready: Jack Layton quote in the quotebox is not in the article body text as well. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 901633 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Often criticised for his sympathies for American causes like the War on Terror, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew scorn this week = a bit POV Style: Not ready: Jack Layton quote in the quotebox is not in the article body text as well. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 901648 [Failed]

Revision 901648 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: "Three of Harper's own cabinet members" = "own" here is repetitive and POV. "Harper has been frequently antagonistic in his relationship with Canadian media." = POV and best to remove it or attribute it to the source. Style: Not ready: Could use more wikilinking, eg "liberal" Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 901648 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: "Three of Harper's own cabinet members" = "own" here is repetitive and POV. "Harper has been frequently antagonistic in his relationship with Canadian media." = POV and best to remove it or attribute it to the source. Style: Not ready: Could use more wikilinking, eg "liberal" Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Fixed the NPOV bits, the antagonistic is in the source as I recall. Added wikilinking. That just leaves the quotebox issue, which it looks like somebody already handled (I actually believed the reverse) Sherurcij 00:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

The title of the article should be shortened. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Style formatting

Changed back to vertical infobox, and left-aligned image, with right-aligned quote. Looks much better this way, and should remain so. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since all WMF projects except apparently WN, agree that images belong top-right, I have restored it to that way. If you don't like the look of the horizontal national template, change it and make it nicer - but don't remove it from articles to which it's been added. We have an image and a quotebox, both in a fairly short article...throwing in a national template that offers unrelated news from August about a model being murdered just clutters it - it can go at the bottom as a footer...most real news sites agree. Sherurcij 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The horizontal infobox looks awfully out of place/awkward at the bottom of the page and makes things look disorganised, imho. There is nothing wrong with having images on the left side instead of the right. I'd say it's better to remove the quote box if things are getting too cluttered. I'll refrain from reverting because I don't want to start a revert war - and I've already undone this edit once - but I'd like some outside opinions on what to do. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let editors who want to use vertical use vertical, and those who want to use horizontal use horizontal? For me it's not a straight issue, I prefer horizontal when there's an image, vertical when there's an image. Sherurcij 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Most WMF projects post an article that is built over time. News reports are a very diferant beast. I agree with sticking, say, WP images in top-right, but with WN I like the norm. But then, I would since I'm used to it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with above comment by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 901879 [Passed]

Revision 901879 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I don't think there are any remaining concerns about NPOV. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 901879 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I don't think there are any remaining concerns about NPOV. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.