Wikipedia:Featured article review/Order of Canada/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 23:57, 18 November 2011 [1].
Order of Canada[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Order of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Top three editors by edit count: Zscout370, Dowew, Miesianiacal. Projects: Orders, Decorations, and Medals, Canada.
Article was promoted in 2005. Talk page notice given in November 2010 but there are several criteria not up to standard.
- 1a Some very short paragraphs that also fall under 2b below. A general copyedit never hurts either.
- 1c There are a few areas that are lacking citations. Several dead links.
- 2a The lead is not comprehensive enough. For example it contains nothing about the refusals and controversy that have sections in the article.
- 2b One paragraph sections. For example the grades section could simply be cut down to four paragraphs without the subsections.
- 2c This is a serious problem. I cannot see any sort of system in place that makes any sense. Full information and consistency of citations are needed. Could use a bibliography section. There are citations used which have no listed source.
- 3 File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg needs a copyright tag stating the file is public domain in its country of origin. I don't understand the file's current status.
- MoS Look into MOS:Images, MOS:LINK and WP:EXT. Brad (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am looking into some of the issues. With the shield, honestly, I been through so many Deletion Requests on the Commons over it that I just removed it and replaced it with the flag. The shield itself , according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_of_Canada#Armorial_evolution, is from 1921 and it is public domain due to age in Canada and added {{PD-Canada}} to the Commons page. I honestly lost the will and drive to maintain this article, so go ahead and delist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The shield image is, as is already noted, a Commons file and thus, by definition, free. It's also used in the infoboxes on almost every article about individual Canadian honours, decorations, and medals; if it's changed at Order of Canada, it will have to be changed at all the others, as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the perspective of FA criteria the file must clearly show that it's PD in the US. Commons policy is also the same but there are probably millions of files there with bad licenses. Anyway, I added another tag which clears the file for PD in the US; therefore the file can now be restored to the article. Brad (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The shield image is, as is already noted, a Commons file and thus, by definition, free. It's also used in the infoboxes on almost every article about individual Canadian honours, decorations, and medals; if it's changed at Order of Canada, it will have to be changed at all the others, as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am looking into some of the issues. With the shield, honestly, I been through so many Deletion Requests on the Commons over it that I just removed it and replaced it with the flag. The shield itself , according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_of_Canada#Armorial_evolution, is from 1921 and it is public domain due to age in Canada and added {{PD-Canada}} to the Commons page. I honestly lost the will and drive to maintain this article, so go ahead and delist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow! Nikkimaria strikes again. I won't even bother picking at anything. Brad (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- 1b, 2a It bothers me when the lead contains facts that are not in the article, even when they are suitably cited. If the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects how can it be summarising what does not appear?
No alt text. I know it is not strictly required; just noting that it is not there.- 2b The FAC delegates have declared ex cathedra that WP:SEEALSO prohibits "See also" sections in featured articles.
- 2b There is also a reference to a B class article's "Further reading" section in the "Further reading"
2c Does the Registre des distinctions honorifiques canadiennes (or indeed any of the books in the citations section) have a place of publication?You're quite right; WP:CITEHOW says that the location is strictly optional.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hawkeye, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, the last four are not actionable in terms of WP:WIAFA: as you note, alt text is not required; I don't know what you're referring to with your "ex cathedra" comment, but it doesn't appear to be reflected in WIAFA; I'm not sure why the Further reading hatnote is a problem; and place of publication is not required so long as we are consistent in either including or omitting it. Your first comment I shall deal with. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find the WP:SEEALSO requirement discussed here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. The circumstances of that discussion are quite different, but I'm not particularly attached to the see alsos, so I've dealt with that and the further reading. I've also tried to address the point you raised about the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain Yeah, but what else can you do? Anyway, the problem with the lead was my main concern. If that is resolved then the article should retain its status. I have added a fact tag to the number of honorary recipients. You may want to re-check the number as someone may have gotten a gong in the Queen's Birthday list. (The number seems very small, and is probably a symptom of Canada's increasing diplomatic isolation.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added three references for the honorary appointments. The first is the search page from the Governor General's website showing the sixteen extant honorary appointments, with one reference each for the appointments that were later made substantive upon the recipient becoming a Canadian citizen. EricSerge (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain Yeah, but what else can you do? Anyway, the problem with the lead was my main concern. If that is resolved then the article should retain its status. I have added a fact tag to the number of honorary recipients. You may want to re-check the number as someone may have gotten a gong in the Queen's Birthday list. (The number seems very small, and is probably a symptom of Canada's increasing diplomatic isolation.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. The circumstances of that discussion are quite different, but I'm not particularly attached to the see alsos, so I've dealt with that and the further reading. I've also tried to address the point you raised about the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find the WP:SEEALSO requirement discussed here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hawkeye, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, the last four are not actionable in terms of WP:WIAFA: as you note, alt text is not required; I don't know what you're referring to with your "ex cathedra" comment, but it doesn't appear to be reflected in WIAFA; I'm not sure why the Further reading hatnote is a problem; and place of publication is not required so long as we are consistent in either including or omitting it. Your first comment I shall deal with. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.