Talk:Manitoba Act, 1870

message: All I know about the Manitoba Act is what I read on Wikipedia (to misquote Will Rogers).  Despite that I have tried to clean up this article a bit but my knowledge limits what I can do. There are two sentences that both relate to the Meti land provisions of the act that seem to be in slight conflict.  Which is correct?  How should they be merged?  The section after my edits and moves says, "In a victory for the Métis, the act guaranteed that they would receive title for the lands they already farmed and 1,400,000 acres (5,700 km2) of farmland for the use of their children. The act also set aside land for the Metis, with each family receiving scrip, a certificate, saying they owned 96 hectares of land, amount to a total of about 560,000 hectares (5,600 km2)." --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence about Meti land

message: I have moved the location of the link to the Wikisource article to under the map since that seems to me to be a better location.  I am not sure Wikipedia's rules are but it seems to me that since the right side is often the place for images and links to other parts on the Wikiverse that the link to Wikisources should go there.  It is easier seen and does not clutter up the end of the article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikisource location

message: The article, particularly the first paragraph of the background section, is in need of citations. There are also instances where the sentences appear to be argumentative (example "Riel was a major influence on the Manitoba Act since it was based on his list of rights.") The first paragraph of the background section also contain multiple facts, but without a citations these facts do not add to the quality of the article. Proper references should be located in order to improve the article quality. The middle paragraph in the background section is in need of more information and more references in order to verify the facts presented. 
Toriferr (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This brief article provides a concise explanation of the Manitoba Act itself, as well as providing a short background on where the act came from. However as a whole it is lacking some crucial information to make it a little more credible. There is a definite lack of sourcing and citations. The article also takes a stance in its opinion of Louis Riel stating that he was a "major influence on the Manitoba Act since it was based on his list of rights." 
I also felt there could have been more added this article. As referring to the quotation above, Riel's list of rights could have been given as a marginal point of reference. They would also give the reader a base of how public policy was examined during this day by understanding the factors that were acknowledged, or considered during the implementation of a policy. 
Chelssmcgee (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is in need of a few more citations (particularly in the first paragraph of the background section) to make the article more academic.  More referencing and citations would verify the facts presented in the article as well as improve the overall quality.  The external links worked, but maybe viewing some more academic and peer-reviewed sources would present more concrete information.  For the most part the article seems to be concise and unbiased but opinion is shown with the following sentence about Riel being a "major influence on the Manitoba Act since it was based on his list of rights." Lastly I feel that more detail and depth can be added to this article. Nadine Viveiros (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Evaluation of the Manitoba Act