Wikipedia:Peer review/Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867/archive1

Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to put it up for Featured Article status. It's gone through DYK and also GA. It is a specialised Canadian legal topic, but it has some discussion of English legal history as well. At heart, this section of the Canadian constitution is about financial control of public funds, where only the House of Commons can start the vote on taxes and spending money, but only the government (ie Prime Minister and Cabinet) can propose money bills for taxes and spending money.

As you'll see from the sidebar in the article, this is one of a series on different sections on the Constitution Act, 1867, which is the foundational statute of the Canadian Constitution. I am trying to have a standard format for these articles, so while I'm open to all suggestions, I hope to keep this same general format, to help with the accessibility of these articles for interested readers. (Plus, I don't want to have to go through and make major formatting changes to all the other articles :) .)

Thanks to anyone who takes a look. I look forward to your comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No activity in over a month, so closing per WP:CLOSEPR. RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments by AdaCiccone

Hi AdaCiccone, Thanks very much for taking the time to look at this!

Some comments from me after a brief read:

• This is a short article and I think the lead is slightly doing more than it should.

Another editor looked at an earlier version for me and said the lead was too short for FA, so I added more content for this draft. :) I've tinkered with it, deleting one paragraph and consolidating two into one. I hope this one is <Goldilocks>just right!</Goldilocks>

• The last two sections aren't sourced: Application to the provinces and Related provisions.

Fixed.

• Looking at the titles, some entries in the Further Reading look like they're substantive and more suited to be used as incline citations.

The reason I put ## 1, 2, and 4 into "Further reading" is that while they have intros about s. 54 and the royal recommendation, they all switch pretty quickly into very detailed technical stuff. ## 1 and 2 both give suggestions how the provision should be interpreted, while # 4 reviews examples of how it has been applied in very specific cases. I think they're useful to have, but are too much in the weeds for the body of the article.

# 3 is the explanation by a Speaker of the Senate of how he has applied s. 54 in a particular case. That struck me as a primary source, so didn't want to put it in the body of the article.

• This is just my personal stylistic preference, but in Current Operations there's one sentence sandwiched between two larger paragraphs. And looking at the next paragraph's opening line, it looks like both are doing similar work. Maybe you can combine them into one smooth opening?

Consolidated it with the next paragraph.

• Still in Current Operations, some words are repeated in close proximity, e.g. private member's bills, which may sound awkward (at least it does to me). Try looking at similar issues elsewhere in the article. But I do understand though that some repetitions are unavoidable because the subject only revolves around a few things.

The difficulty here is that "private member's bill" is a term of art, referring to a specific type of bill with special rules. I can't condense it to "private bill", because that's a different type of bill, and I don't want to use "bill" by itself, because a reader may not appreciate that this is a very specific case. I did tinker with the wording a bit and eliminated one instance.

• Some sections have similar opening, which may sound repetitive. It could be better if there's a little variation or a connecting phrase so that the article feel less segmented and more integrated.
  • Section 54 has its origins...
  • Section 53 of the act...
  • Section 54 is related to section 53...
  • Section 54 only refers...

Tinkered with some of them

That's all I could think of right now. Overall it's a good article, and to me at least, could be a strong FAC but for that, you'd need more eyes than just one editor at the PR. AdaCiccone (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the encouragement! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Caddyshack01

I enjoyed reading the article. There were a couple sentences that did not flow too well. I included those below with a suggestion, feel free to ignore the suggestion if you can draft something better.

• Use of pictures, captions, and alt text is great.
• Inclusion of wikilinks for first use of Union Act, 1840; Erskine May; Standing Orders of the British House of Commons
• Clunky sentences may be improved: "When Confederation was being debated, the Quebec Resolutions of 1864 and the London Resolutions of 1866 both included a requirement for a recommendation from the governor general for tax and spending bills."... suggestion "When Confederation was being debated, delegates included a requirement for for tax and spending bills to require a recommendation from the governor general in both the Quebec Resolutions of 1864 and the London Resolutions of 1866."
• Clunky sentences may be improved: "The provision was set out in the rough draft of the British North America bill prepared by a sub-committee of the London Conference, composed of the four provincial attorneys general. The provision was included in all of the drafts of the bill leading up to the passage of the Constitution Act, 1867" could be "The provision was set out in the rough draft of the British North America bill prepared by a sub-committee of the London Conference, composed of the four provincial attorneys general; and was included in all of the drafts of the bill leading up to the passage of the Constitution Act, 1867."
• Clunky sentences may be improved: "A Cabinet member passes the governor general's recommendation to the Commons, now usually by means of a written notice accompanying a bill at any stage before third reading, the final vote on a bill in the Commons." could be something like "A Cabinet member passes the governor general's recommendation to the Commons at any stage before the third reading, the final vote on a bill in the Commons. This is done now usually by means of a written notice accompanying a bill."
• Clunky sentences may be improved: "For one thing, no court action has clarified the precise scope of the section." could be something "For one thing, there is no jurisprudence clarifying the precise scope of the section."

Overall, great job! - Caddyshack01 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)