Talk:Monarchy New Zealand

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed move[edit]

According to this organisation's latest newsletter [1], they have changed their name to "Monarchy New Zealand". I proposed the article is moved to "Monarchy New Zealand". --Lholden (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated[edit]

I have rewritten this article. I will be seeking reassessment from WikiProject New Zealand as to the articles quality now Brian | (Talk) 18:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it at Start class for now. Areas of improvement are:

The lead is supposed to summarise the most important information. Currently, it contains info that is not in the body of the article.
Expand the content, e.g. the history section.
It needs secondary sources, as opposed to quoting the organisation itself. Schwede 66 04:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added cite tags to the claims made regarding membership. --LJ Holden 03:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when you might add them! Brian | (Talk) 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you intentional added claims that are inaccurate? :-P --LJ Holden 03:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

hehe. :P Brian | (Talk) 05:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the statement is self-evident with the published names of members already visible e.g Noel Cox, former Chair who is a lawyer and academic, Sean (PhD) and the other, plus two MPs being our Patrons etc from different political parties etc .Brian | (Talk) 03:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-evident to the casual reader who knows nothing of this organisation. Sean's PhD isn't mentioned, nor is Professor Cox's position anymore. Moreover, the statement "practical experience relating to the crown" is unqualified, hence the reason for my original tongue-in-cheek statement.--LJ Holden 04:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yes. And btw, I did not mean to remove the cite tag - just was meaning to fix the June 2011 thing as the tag was not working correctly for some reason. Will have a dig around and fix this cite. Brian | (Talk) 05:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I assumed good faith when I restored the tag. However I do think the wording needs work. Anyone could claim to have "pratical experience relating to the crown" - even barristers. I suspect you mean something a bit narrower than that! --LJ Holden 05:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

heh, yes. This shows one thing. Don't start rewriting wiki articles at 1am after wine... Brian | (Talk) 07:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]