Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2010

December 2010

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [1].

---

Lincoln cent

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is the fourth in my numismatics series. The Lincoln cent may not be worth the zinc it's struck on today, but upon release, thousands of people lined up across the country to get it. Its redesign was part of the Great Redesign of 1907 through 1921, in which every denomination got a new design, and as with many of them, there's an interesting story behind it. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll go through with straightforward prose tweaks (revert if I guff the meaning) and jot queries below... prose looks good now. Can't comment on offline sources but presume concisification :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support but what is concisification?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bringing lotsa words and concepts (i.e. books) down to concise WP articles...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

an eagle could not appear on the cent - huh? why?

An eagle had to appear on the reverse of any denomination larger than the dime. The Mint read this provision to mean that for the dime and smaller denominations, an eagle could not appear on either side. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint-Gaudens was seriously ill with the cancer which would kill him - aargh. I find this ungainly, but concede an alternate way of phrasing is not jumping out at me.

"..terminally ill with cancer", or "seriously and terminally ill with cancer"? 75.37.65.219 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thing is, everyone who is terminally ill is by definition seriously ill. I used very similar language in Saint-Gaudens double eagle, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted the mention of Saint-Gaudens's death, given it is mentioned two sentences later, the reader will not have long to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• duh! terminally ill...how could I have forgotten that? Nevermind. Works ok now anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

..and was already causing the issuance of large numbers of privately-manufactured souvenirs - "...and large numbers of privately-manufactured souvenirs were already being issued" (or were they being prepared to be issued in '09?)

Nope, they were out there. I'll make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Design section, two photos of Lincoln are mentioned as possible inspirations, but only one is pictured. I think it'd be good to get the other one in if it is also considered a source. Question is, is the section then too crammed with images.... (I thought having them one atop the other might be ok)

It is this image btw. I was worried about number of images, yes, and felt the Brady one was more famous (although the one by Anthony Berger looks an awful lot like the coin, doesn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not a deal-breaker as adding an image would cram the page too much I think.

but instead simply ruled out the submitted designs as suitable for the reverse of the cent - unsuitable?

Yes, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 68 needs an accessdate. On a style thing, I reckon there is a significant advantage in using "10 November 2010" rather than "2010-11-10" I still pause wit hthe latter at times wondering whether it is November 10 or October 11. I feel changing the dates to the former format makes for a more polished-looking page, but I wouldn't make my support conditional on that.

I don't see designed and sculpted by Charles Vickers, nor Joel Iskowitz, Don Everhart, Susan Gamble or Joseph Menna mentioned in ref 69. can we supply the refs they came from for the prose (there are some handy commas they can go after).

Sorry, the Mint moved that info and I meant to put it back in. I will now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Link Joseph Menna at first instance.

I have changed the date format, supplied the missing link (also from the Mint, my bad, it's all one source), linked Menna as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Query the infobox image is the 2010 coin, why was this chosen and is it the author's intention to update it annually? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as it is a clearly PD image, from the Mint's website, and used in the similar infobox in Penny (United States coin), there was no reason not to use it. I doubt I will change the image. Given tax rates, it's nice to get something free from the Government , even if it is only a penny, and virtual at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not stated the reason the 2010 coin was used Fasach Nua (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it was already used in the infobox, which I borrowed, and when I checked, it was from the Mint's website. I have had to go to considerable lengths to get images of coins, to have a PD image made me happy. Certainly the appearance of the cent has varied slightly over the 102 years it's been struck (the relief has been altered, for example), but the current piece seemed perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a preference, the Mint also has images of the 2009 and 2007 cents on its web site. (Scratches head. Looks puzzled.)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This shouldn't matter that much, but why does Lincoln Cent redirect to the main U.S. penny article? Is there a specific reason? By the way, I added a main article link for Lincoln penny under its heading in the main penny article. BV ^talk 03:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not complicated. I wrote the Lincoln cent article, before that, Lincoln cent was a redirect to the penny article. Coverage of numismatics here is not what it should be. Thanks for adding that link.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Just a couple of small points:-

• Ref 10: What is the purpose of the note "Lincoln actually held a photograph album"? Shouldn't the LOC link be formatted?
• The newspaper titles in refs 69 and 70 should be italicised.

Otherwise, no issues on reliability or citation. Spotchecks on the online sources OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln was not reading to Tad, they were looking at one of Brady's photograph albums. Photography being what it was in 1864, a huge urban legend has grown up about this photograph that it shows Lincoln reading to Tad. Even such an authority as the US Postal Service has fallen into the trap, see here. As Brenner believed it, and his belief may have been a key to the design process, I felt an explanation was needed somewhere. I'm uncertain what the format is for information to support a link in a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who don't know the legend, could the note be extended to read, say, "Contrary to the legend thta Lincoln was reading to his son, he was actually showing him a photograph album." The LOC link is broken, presumably temporarily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good. Should be promoted.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external redirect, though the link still worked. --PresN 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Looked at the article and made a few small tweaks to it. The one sentence I had some trouble understanding was this one: "There was intense public interest in the cents, especially since the Mint had not permitted images of the new coin to be printed in the newspaper." Is this meant to mean newspapers in particular, or one specific paper? If it's a general statement, "newspaper" should be plural. Without access to the source, I didn't want to touch it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be phrased either way. "In the newspaper" implies all newspapers. Still, I will change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Just a note, but the wheat design proposed in 2009 was similar to the 1 and 2 reichspfennig pieces minted by the Weimar Republic, minted from 1923 to 1936. An image can be viewed here. Also, do you think there's a source for public domain images of the proposed designs for the 2010 cent? If an image of the proposed design and an image of the Weimar issue(s) can be found for the article, I think it would be a great comparison. Of course, I'm new, so I don't want to say something that will ruin the article. Those were just my thoughts.-RHM22 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a fair point. If they did not win, they reverted to the artists, so an image of that design would probably not be PD, it certainly was not PD-money. I don't think I could make a convincing fair use rationale argument. I don't think we could use the German coin without the other. I couldn't find any proposed designs on the Mint's website, which probably says something. If I find anything to the contrary, I'll post. Thanks for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Either way, not having it there doesn't take anything away from the article to me.-RHM22 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is good. Do you have a position on whether it should be promoted to Featured Article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a fine article. I wasn't sure if I should show my opinion since I'm not an administrator or anything like that. If it doesn't matter, I would definitely support the article's promotion to featured status.

As a small side not, do you think that the Bicentennial redesign and Union Shield redesign should be separated into two different sections? It's not big deal to me, but I thought it was worth mentioning.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you support, could you please put a bolded word "support" at the start of your comment just above there? I've made the change you suggest. The subsections are a bit short but no doubt will grow as interesting things happen to the cent in the future.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Supported! You've done some very nice work on this article. Good luck getting it to FA.-RHM22 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any further comments, but I just wanted to add that I checked with the U.S. Mint and they confirmed that they only allow the use of approved designs. I thought that that was probably the case, but I wanted to double check to be absolutely certain.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. I'll know that if I go for Jefferson nickel to complete the nickel series.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: A few points for fixing:-

• For the benefit of non-Americans, can you identify "the four gold coins" mentioned in the lead and elsewhere?
• "profited off the new coins" → "profited from the new coins"
• "With the US entry into World War II in 1942..." Er, 1941 surely? I know it was December, but...

Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done those. Thanks for the support. Possibly a premature senior moment there ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Four supports (one a bit dodgy, I know), and I believe all checks have been done. I don't know what Fasach Nua's concern about the 2010 cent is, but it is for him to address, he has not tied it to WP:WIAFA. Anyone else who wants to put in their two ... um, their two ... well, weigh in, is welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - the question about why the 2010 version of the penny is being used is one of the strangest questions I have ever read in a FAC. Great work and it's plain to me why you've chosen the 2010... it's the current version. Dincher (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I believe Wheat cent is redundant to this fine article and should be merged. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and for the helpful edits you made. If you would like to start a merge discussion on Wheat cent, I will happily support it there. It's not something we can do within the scope of a FAC. I saw no sourced, useful content there worth the borrowing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I think there are some prose issues, and a few factual points need clarification. A non-exhaustive list is here, but I think a light copyedit would really help. I notice, in particular, that you use a great deal of passive voice, which can get confusing and wordy. Second, I think there are a lot of unnecessary clauses. Together, these make the article flow poorly. Sir Nils (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "At Roosevelt's instructions, the Mint hired Saint-Gaudens to redesign the cent and the four gold pieces." Were these 5 coins the only ones in existence at the time? If so, I think that should be made clear. If not, why weren't other coins changed?

   You omit the rest of the sentence "which did not require congressional approval." This is the lede, the reader is on notice to expect a fuller explanation in the body. Where it is given.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2. "With the sculptor in declining health (he died on August 3, 1907), Saint-Gaudens never submitted an additional design for the cent." The way this is phrased seems to suggest that "the sculptor" and "Saint-Gaudens" are not the same person.

   I will rephrase this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

3. "When Leach examined the models, he saw that Brenner had put his full surname on the obverse, and Leach objected to this." In cases like this, I don't see the need for so many words. How about just saying "When Leach examined the models, he objected to the fact that Brenner had put his full surname on the obverse"?

   Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   On reflection, I've used your sentence, but started it with "After". Leach looked at the models, then wrote a letter to Brenner.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

4. "On March 4, 1909, the day on which Roosevelt left office, replaced by William Howard Taft, Brenner met with Mint Engraver Charles E. Barber in Philadelphia." The "on which" is entirely unnecessary. Why not just say "the day Roosevelt left office"

   I think that is a little too bare, style wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

5. "The Philadelphia Mint had struck 20,000,000 of the new coin even before its design was made official by Secretary MacVeagh." It would be perfectly acceptable to say "The Philadelphia mint struck 20,000,000 of the new coin" the had is unneeded wordiness.

   Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

6. "had not permitted images of the new coin to be printed in the newspapers." Better usage would be to just say "in newspapers".

   I'm getting a conflict between reviewers here. Your way is what I originally had.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

7. "The cents without Brenner's initials were in production not later than August 12, 1909" What does that even mean? Is the precise date unknown? Wouldn't it be better to say "were in production by August 12, 1909"?

   The precise date is unknown. We have a letter dated August 12, which mentions that the new coins were in production. We do not know the date they actually started.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

8. "ending the shortages which had occurred." Is it really necessary to say "which had occurred". Why not just say "ending the shortages."?

   It's a bit problematical that way (what shortages?) So, I've struck the clause entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

9. "The recession year of 1922 saw few cents coined. At the time, dies were only made at Philadelphia; the Denver Mint had outstanding orders for cents that year. When Denver applied to the Philadelphia Mint for more dies (cents were not struck at either Philadelphia or San Francisco that year), it was told that the Philadelphia Mint could supply no more cent dies, as it was fully engaged in preparing dies for the Peace dollar." I think the organization here is confusing. Also, does the fact that 1922 was a recession have anything to do with the low production? If so, the connection should be made explicit. If not, I think the phrase "recession year" ought to be excluded as it implies some connection.

   I see your point and would not have mentioned it if it were not relevant. I will make it more clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

10. "With the US entry into World War II in 1941, copper supplies were needed for war production. The cent contained up to five percent tin, which was also in short supply. Experiments were carried out at several corporations under contract from the Mint; they tested various metallic and non-metallic (including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic) substances." Up to this point (with the exception of the infobox) the copper content of the coin has not been mentioned. It would also be helpful to have a bridging sentence or phrase linking wartime demand to the experiments For example: "which was also in short supply, so the Mint looked for ways to make cents without copper or tin".

    I've made a slight rephrase; it should not be necessary to repeat what is in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

11. "Zinc and iron form an electromagnetic "couple"; the two metals soon corrode when in contact with each other in a damp atmosphere." How about "Because zinc and iron...." with removal of the semicolon?

    I really don't like starting sentences with "Because".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

12. "Morgenthau responded the new pieces would soon become darker, and that the Mint would be willing to darken them if it could figure out a suitable process." Should be "Morgenthau responded that"

    Nice catch, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

13. "be replaced with coins 95% copper and 5% zinc" I think "with coins containing" would be much better

    Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

14. "It was announced that some of the metal for the new coins would be obtained by melting down small arms ammunition shells." Announced by whom? Passive voice strikes again.

    I'll change that. It was the Treasury.

15. "After the war, the Treasury quietly retired as many steel cents as it could from circulation, while denying it was doing so" How did the Treasury remove the coins? Isn't the removal of currency something handled by the Federal Reserve?

    Yes, but worn coin ultimately reverts to the Treasury so it can be melted, something especially important in the days when specie circulated. The exact mechanism is not specified, but certainly the Treasury could ask the Fed to pull out as many as it could and place them with the worn/damaged coin returned to the Mint for melting and recoinage. I imagine that the old steel cents were just defaced and scrapped, or possibly used for foreign coin struck by the Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

16. "A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known, and are expensive." I'm not sure what is meant by "are known". Does this mean "are known to collectors" or "are in private hands"?

    Are known to exist. They are in private hands, as they were issued. I will make a slight change.

17. "There are also many cents dated 1943 that were coated with copper to imitate the genuine rarity. These pieces may be distinguished from genuine off-metal strikes by the use of a magnet." This seems like wonky collector information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia to me, but that's just an opinion.

    I understand where you are coming from, but it was notable enough to be mentioned in the secondary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

18. "but it was felt that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent." Who felt this way?

    Mint officials.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

19. "although some pieces entered circulation early" How did this happen? Simple mistake or something else?

    Doesn't say. Mistake is implied, but I don't want to go beyond my source.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are just a handful of the problems that would benefit from a copy edit. More generally, I also get the feeling that the information regarded to collecting (e.g., this or that cent is rare or valuable) ought to be split into a separate section to improve flow and cohesion. Finally, the article tends to completely ignore the use of the cent and its impact (other than by implication as coinage and an object of collectors). The Lincoln penny has, in my humble opinion, had pervasive social impact. In the words of Frank Meyer, "Coins of the United States serve not only as a medium of exchange, but also as an expression of the ideals and aspirations of a people." Sir Nils (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are actually points I gave attention to, and thank you for making your thoughts known. Collecting Lincoln cents is a huge topic, and a minefield. I think giving a minimum of information about collecting or rarity is appropriate without having to write a section on collecting which would require a lot more information, in my view beyond the scope of the article. We are talking about a coin which is widely collected and has been struck for 102 years. As for the social impact of the cent, that is better left for penny (United States coin), rather than for one of the several designs the denomination has had. I will ask two of the people who reviewed copyedited the article to review your comments and express his views about the need for another copyedit.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that social impact insofar as it involves lucky pennies, etc. is probably better at the Penny article as it's not specific to the Lincoln cent per se, but there are some significant facts about it. To minimize clutter here, I've put a few things on the article talk page that might be good to integrate. I don't really know enough about the collecting topic to make a worthwhile suggestion, but I personally think that the issues in collecting (e.g., that this or that penny is rare and thus valuable) are quite aside from other aspects of the penny. Sir Nils (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would have to disagree with the above statement. What makes the cultural impact of the Lincoln cent worth mentioning if collectibility is not? If the article were strictly focused on the coin itself, I might agree, but since the idea of the article is not only to explain the coin itself, but also the impact the coin has had. I would certainly agree that too much collector-oriented information is distracting and useless, but I certainly think it's constructive to hit the high points, so to speak.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting excluding the collecting stuff, just moving it to a dedicated section as it's different from the other aspects. Sir Nils (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the article, I have made a few small edits that I will detail below. But first, there a few things I was concerned about, but I didn't want to be presumptuous and edit them myself.

• "The Lincoln cent or Lincoln penny is a cent coin (or penny)"

Do you think that the second use of "penny" should be removed? It seems a little redundant.

• "Bass's shield design was coined."

I'm not positive on this, but isn't the apostrophe usually ammended on the end of a name when it ends in S?

• "On Sunday morning, December 21, 1958, President Eisenhower's press secretary, James Hagerty, issued a press release announcing that a new reverse design for the cent would begin production on January 2, 1959."

Morning seems irrelevant.

I've made the following changes to the article:

"The initials were restored at Lincoln's shoulder in 1918."

Changed to "The initials were restored, this time on Lincoln's shoulder, in 1918"

", and the Mint hired him to redesign the coins"

Changed to ", and he was hired by the Mint to redesign the coins"

"However, Burdette adds that in an April 1, 1909 letter, Brenner mentions that in producing the design, he envisioned Lincoln reading to a child,"

Changed to "However, Burdette adds that in an April 1, 1909 letter, Brenner mentioned that in producing the design, he envisioned Lincoln reading to a child,"

", and he had no objection to having the reductions done by an outside silversmith."

Changed to ", and he raised no objection to having the reductions done by an outside silversmith."

"they tested various metallic and non-metallic (including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic) substances."

Changed to "they tested various metallic and non-metallic substances, including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic."

"A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known to exist, and are expensive."

Changed to "A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known to exist, and are valuable."

"but MInt officials feared that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent."

Changed to "but Mint officials feared that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent."

"The coin officially was released on February 12, 1959, the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, although some pieces entered circulation early."

Changed to "The coin was officially released on February 12, 1959, the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, although some pieces entered circulation early."

"and began striking the proof coins"

Changed to "and began striking proof coins"

"One, known as the Toven Specimen, was possessed by the family of a former Capitol police officer,"

Changed to "One, known as the Toven Specimen, was in the possession of the family of a former Capitol police officer,"

As a couple of final notes,

• Under the image of Lincoln reading to Tad, it says "picture". Is it a photograph or a drawing? I imagine it's a photograph, since the author is Matthew Brady. It seems like "photograph" would be more accurate than "picture."
• The article says that the wheat on the reverse was the same kind used to make spaghetti, but is that really important?
• You mentioned the public outcry over Brenner's initials, but it doesn't say that designer's initials were placed prominently on many coins before this. I can provide examples if you'd like. This isn't really necessary, but I think it might add to the article.
• I was a little concerned with the use of "penny" sprinkled throughout. I know that's a common name, but perhaps the official name should be used in the body of the article. Obviously that's a matter of opinion, but I just thought I should mention it.

As you can see, these are all very minor concerns. Still, I found them to be worth mentioning.-RHM22 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a photograph. Since an IP also cut out the explanation of the durum wheat, I'll take it out. I agree wholeheartedly on the cent v penny thing, but if you look at the penny talk page, you'll see that penny won the war here on wikipedia, and I can't marginalize that word. As for the initials, yes, I'm aware, ASG on the double eagle is particularly bold. (and look at Roty's name on the French pieces)! Let me go look at my sources on how Burdette phrases it and why it wasn't mentioned at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [2].

---

Biddenden Maids

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the odder surviving remnants of old English folk tradition. Each year at Easter, the elderly and widows of the small town of Biddenden (and a large crowd of tourists) gather for a free handout of bread, cheese, tea and biscuits imprinted with a picture of conjoined twins, in a ceremony which has gone on for at least 300 and possibly as many as 900 years. There are three competing theories for the origins of this bizarre tradition: that it genuinely commemorates two adult conjoined twins from the year 1100 (which would make them one of the oldest documented cases ever recorded); that the twins existed, but in the 16th century; that the twins are a folk myth based on the unusual cake design, which was actually intended to represent poor widows. I think this article gives equal weight to all three theories (none of which, unless someone digs up a conjoined skeleton one day in Biddenden churchyard, will ever be provable), and neutrally explains the arguments for and against each. – iridescent 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: nitpicks only:-

• Consistency required with "Retrieved" and "retrieved"
• "Bibliography" is a slightly misleading title (it could comprise sources and further reading). Better to call it "Sources", Incidentally, I can't see a citation to the "Sylvanus Urban" source.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Spotchecks on online sources reveal nothing amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 12 is the citation to Urban (it's cited 5 times, but all to the same page so it only shows up once in the reflist). The Retrieved/retrieved was due to a {{cite web}} sneaking in, now fixed. – iridescent 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies re Urban - blame age, myopia etc. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hasted: For consistency, shouldn't the Hasted references use the {{sfn}}. Rather than the British History Online websource (verbatim text?), The Weald website has scanned pages of the actual work, and would seem to be a better websource, as no errors from the original can be made. this is the page with the mention of "vulgar tradition". Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Any citations I add anywhere are to the edition I've used; if it's print, I cite the particular print edition I've used; if it's online, I cite the online source. "Consistency" is a red herring; citation/core outputs results in a standardized form. I don't see any reason to use a particular edition of a source, unless there's a material difference between the editions. I don't think anyone has ever had any concerns about British History Online's web-reprints of historic texts; since they're squarely in Ealdgyth's area of work, one can be pretty certain that if there were any issues with it, they would have been raised long ago. If you're going to oppose over this, so be it; especially in the current climate, I have no intention of lying about sourcing. – iridescent 07:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. If British History Online is deemed to be very accurate, then I won't oppose it's use. I'd have used The Weald myself, but thats just my preference. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external redirect (.org to .com). --PresN 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: the article reads well; no problems there. I could find no instances of close paraphrasing in samples of the passages cited from Bondeson (1992). I was able to find a few sources not cited here. [3] calls the Biddenden Maids the earliest well-documented case of conjoined twins (!). doi:10.1002/ajmg.10070 cites the following sources on the Maids:

• Ballantyne JW. 1895. The Biddenden Maids: the medieval pygopagus. Teratologia 2: 268–274.
• GouldGM, PyleWL. 1896. Anomalies and curiosities of medicine. New York: Julian Press (1956 reprint).
• Guttmacher AF. 1967. Biographical notes on some famous conjoined twins. Birth Defects (OAS) 3: 10–17.

JSTOR 20271788, from the 1902 British Medical Journal, does not seem to provide any more data than are already in the article. This book may have some more material, but Google Books won't let me see the relevant pages. This is another with some possibly good material, and it quotes large pieces of Ballantyne. ISBN 9781566890359 is a novel that mentions the Chulkhurst sisters.

None of these seem likely to have much more relevant information. Ucucha 22:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have access to those three, but as Bondeson's paper and the expanded version in the book (both cited) cite them, I assume they don't have anything substantive to add (it's very much a story full of holes). Calling them "well-documented" is stretching it, since (assuming the story is genuine) the only documentation for the first 600 years is a biscuit design, so I don't really want to include that. They're generally considered the second recorded case in Europe; there's a case from circa 940 AD in Byzantine records. Other cultures, particularly in Latin America, have depictions of conjoined twins going back much further, so I think it ought to be very vague about any "earliest" claim. – iridescent 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those people must have an expansive view of the meaning of the word "well-documented". That paper also cites some other early Eurasian cases, by the way, including one in Cappadocia in 970 (perhaps the one you're referring to). It doesn't seem too relevant to this article, although a history of conjoined twins would be interesting. Ucucha 22:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's Conjoined twins#Conjoined twins in history already; that's in such a poor state, I don't think it warrants splitting off. (For obvious reasons, I have no intention of touching any medical article, especially one as potentially contentious as that, with a barge-pole.) – iridescent 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support A terrific read, and no real queries, although perhaps you could assure me that "The Two Headed Nightingale" in note 10 lacks the hyphen in your source too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks... It does lack the hyphen, but I notice that our Millie and Christine McCoy does include it. Bondeson's Swedish and may not be familiar with the quirks of English punctuation—as you may guess, I've no opinions either way on whether or not it's hyphenated. – iridescent 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is just about as good an article on a cake as I ever expect to see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think my minor editing of the article disqualifies me from participation here. I can't see any major problems with the article that prevent it from reaching FA status. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [4].

---

Canadian heraldry

Nominator(s): →ROUX ₪ 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this article is as good as it is going to get. It's clear, concise, well-referenced, and adequately illustrated with images. I like to think the writing is fairly decent, too. → ROUX ₪ 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links, one dead external link, will likely offer further comments today or tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What version are you looking at? I removed that link yesterday. That article, written by the former Chief Herald of Canada, is no longer available online; the referencing information included is more than enough to find it. Oh, wait.. for some reason I'd used the same full ref twice instead of just using the refname. Doh. Fixed. This being my first trial by fire time through FAC, is no dablinks good or bad? → ROUX ₪ 13:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No dablinks is good, and I got that link from the "external links" tool in the toolbox on the right of this screen - running that and the dablinks tool is standard practice early in an FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah.. I apparently muffed something when I was first writing this, defined a named ref twice. I removed the first definition yesterday, but obviously the other was still there. → ROUX ₪ 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Refs 11, 24 and 52 lack publisher details
• Refs 53, 54, 56 and 57 give website names rather than publisher details
• refs 23, 24 and 25 have inconsistent retrieval date format.

Otherwise, all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to fix them, and going crosseyed in the process. I've just gotten home from a very long day of cooking, so I'll get to this stuff tomorrow. → ROUX ₪ 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed all except 52. The publication information is sort of listed in the ref; I am unable to find further publication information other than the website itself (heraldsnet.org) and the name of the uploader (saitou). Should I include those? → ROUX ₪ 11:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The book the website claims to represent is online here [5]. I think it might be better to use this rather than the website - get the info straight from the source.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How terribly helpful. Ta! → ROUX ₪ 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

1. Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
2. Don't link things in See also that are already linked in the article text
3. How does one determine which version of the coronet a Loyalist might have? Should spell it out, though it's somewhat implied
4. Why are pale and fess bolded?
5. "from aboriginal and First Nations people" - "peoples", and why do you specify First Nations when that group is covered by "aboriginal"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what else to add to the lead; my understanding is that it should be a summary of the article. What have I left out that should be included? I have expanded the lead somewhat; do you think it is sufficient?
2. Doh.
3. Fixed
4. I had bolded them in order to link the words together; it made sense at the time. unbolded.
5. There is some uncertainty in Canada about the correct term to use for the indigenous population. See First_Nations#Terminology and Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#Terminology for more info. It's kind of a mess to be honest, and refs could be found supporting any or all of First Nations, Native, Indian, Aboriginal, Indigenous, etc. I used the terminology that is most inclusive and most widely used within Canada. (For example, in general terms First Nations is used in the media for aboriginal peoples who are not Inuit; the latter tends to be referred to specifically by that name). → ROUX ₪ 11:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

1. "In addition, similar to those of Nunavut, First Nations arms may be set on a roundel rather than a traditional European escutcheon." is there a ref for this?
2. The list under the "Personal" section—are the two refs by "Most corporate bodies" for the whole list or just "Most corporate bodies"?
3. Some of the sections feel rather brief ("Divisions of the field") and surely there is more information known about the history of Canadian heraldry?

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I could have sworn I had one, but I can't find it. I have removed the statement; in reality arms may be displayed on any shape of shield that the artist decides. The heater style common in English heraldry is merely the most common.
2. The refs are for the whole section. I felt that including them on each line would be overly redundant. I have moved the ref to make things more clear, I hope.
3. The Divisions section is necessarily short; I wanted to stick to elements that are both unique and widely used. I have retitled the section to Charges, ordinaries, and divisions of the field and am now populating it. As for history, that is all I can find that is not otherwise adequately covered either in other sections (e.g. Official) or in other articles (e.g. Arms of Canada). → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Adding: I have slightly expanded the history section to mention some notable COAs. Working on the other one. → ROUX ₪ 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

More

1. In the table of brisures, "a fir twig" is the only one that has "a" in front of the object. Is this on purpose?
2. Ref 58 with The Canadian Encyclopedia, I think The Canadian Encyclopedia (which needs to be italicized there) is the work and "Historica-Dominion" is the publisher.

The changes you made before seem good to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. If by 'on purpose' you mean 'was an utter brainfart,' yes. Fixed.
2. Ditto; this states the publisher as Historica Foundation. → ROUX ₪ 02:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This caught my eye. Sometimes when a statement ends in closing bracket ")" the ref appears before it. Shouldn't it be after? Either directly after the bracket, or after the comma or period after the bracket? Here's one example:

Of notable exception is the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia, awarded in 1625 by Charles I (making it the oldest coat of arms in the Commonwealth outside of the United Kingdom), in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement.

Further on in the article there's this, this way just 'looks better' to me at least (either way the article should be consistent, one way or the other):

To differentiate identical arms, a system known as cadency was developed, possibly by John Writhe in 1500 (though other sources argue that systems of cadency were in use at least two centuries prior), which adds a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms.

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly inconsistency, sorry. I personally prefer to keep the ref inside the parentheses to indicate that it only supports that statement; outside the parentheses could imply that the ref supports the entire preceding sentence. → ROUX ₪ 11:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from DrKiernan^{Resolved. Support below. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)}

I think you may need an expert image reviewer to check the copyright status of File:Canada-Arms.jpg. As a two-dimensional work of art I don't think it is covered by freedom of panorama, so the copyright presumably rests with the artist not with the photographer. File:HBC-coa.JPG may have similar issues, but I presume that is an old work of art rather than a modern one?

On the text:

1. Does "mark of authority" as in royal insignia as a mark of authority have a specific meaning, and is this phrase actually used by the sources? If not, I'd be inclined to drop "as a mark of authority" and leave it as incorporating royal insignia in the lead, followed by are used by in the Canadian heraldry#State and national section.
2. It seems incredible that the Nova Scotian arms should be overlooked and then rediscovered. If this is not certain, then I would change The original was rediscovered in 1929, and replaced the 1868 version. with The original replaced the 1868 version in 1929.
3. I don't think use of then-Secretary of State or then-Governor General is necessary. You could just cut the then.
4. There's "authorized" with a z but "organise" with an s. I would select either one or the other throughout the article so that ize/ise endings are consistently applied.
5. In the Canadian heraldry#Official section, there is an mdash—to break a sentence, but in the following sentence spaced ndashes – are used. Try to stick to one or the other throughout the article, rather than mixing styles.
6. Should each province and territory possesses its own unique arms; Saskatchewan's ... read each province and territory possesses its own unique arms; for example, Saskatchewan's ...? If not, I'd be inclined to drop the Saskatchewan sentence since it looks out of place there.
7. As mentioned above, symbols and elements from aboriginal and First Nations people does look odd. How about aboriginal and First Nations symbols and elements?
8. I think though other sources argue that systems of cadency were in use at least two centuries prior which adds a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms is easier to understand as though other sources argue that systems of cadency that add a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms were in use at least two centuries prior.
9. Is the source really arguing that cadency arose at least two centuries prior? Certainly, it argues for an origin by around 1350 or 1380, but not (by my reading) by 1300, although differencing was apparently used by then. I'd probably try a wording along the lines of: as much as two centuries before.
10. I wonder whether the "Status of women" section should come before the "Cadency" section? I only mention this because I'm intrigued to know why Canada has a unique system of cadency marks for women, and I presume (out of ignorance) that this is because they can bear arms on equal terms with men? If not, perhaps it could be explained how these unique marks arose?

An interesting article that I enjoyed reading. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've numbered your bullets for clarity in responding:

1. Inasmuch as all authority in Canada is ultimately derived from the Sovereign, usage of the Arms is a reference to that authority. A Crown of Maples uses the word 'sovereignty'; Department of Heritage says they 'signify national sovereignty or ownership'[6], and the RHSC indicates that national arms denote royal authority[7]. I felt that the simple term 'mark of authority' covered all these bases without going into a long digression about Canadian legal theory and history.
2. Overlooked and rediscovered is exactly what happened. The Royal Warrant in 1868 awarded arms for the four provinces of Confederation (ON, QC, NS, NB) without regard for arms in use at the time. In 1929 the original was rediscovered (precisely how is unclear), and reinstated.
3. I prefer the use of then- to distinguish from current officeholders; I find it to be more clear.
4. One of the problems of growing up in Canada is our tendency to absorb both the Queen's English and the American... version. Our spelling is therefore often inconsistent; I've aligned the spelling to be consistent.
5. Fixed for consistency.
6. I hesitate to use 'for example' when I am unable to find sources indicating the official names of arms in provinces other than SK. There was something of a brouhaha about similar titling, involving an aggressive monarchist (you know who, I believe), so I included that as a sop to prevent him from showing up at this article to cause more disruption.
7. Hmm, yes. Fixed.
8. Hahhaa, that was an editing error on my part. I got tangled up in where refs ended (we really need a much better method of dealing with that).
9. Your wording is more elegant.
10. The status of women comes where it does because I felt the most neutral presentation of subheadings in that section would be alphabetical (as opposed to the Modern Heraldry section, in which case the progression from largest jurisdiction--the CHA--to smallest--personal--made the most sense).

I think I've addressed everything you mentioned. Glad you enjoyed the article! → ROUX ₪ 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On 6, I suspected as much. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd rather avoid further entanglement there; I suspect you understand. As to point 1, it seems pretty obvious to me from the sources; do you have a suggestion that would better address your concern? Point 2 is about as clear as it can be; it is factually correct and supported by the sources. Point 3 is a stylistic thing, I think, and unless there's serious objection I'm probably not going to change it. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about 1 or 3; they won't effect whether I support, but I'll leave them unstruck so others can follow the debate. On 2, I've been reading up on it at [8]. I don't think the wording of that sentence is quite right at the moment, would you accept The original was later rediscovered, and replaced the 1868 version in 1929? DrKiernan (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did I forget about that source? What a twit I am. Thanks; it has also neatly addressed your point 1. → ROUX ₪ 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose File:HBC-coa.JPG & File:Canada-Arms.jpg, are both claimed as "own work" but appear to be derived work of existing artwork Fasach Nua (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't it be a bit more collaborative to inform me of this and let me know how to fix it, rather than blanket opposing for it? I had thought that photographs counted as 'own work,' which is how both images are licenced on Commons. I had made the assumption that images available on Commons, particularly images that have been around for a while, are free to use and have been checked for licencing problems. Could you explain what the problem is and how to fix it? → ROUX ₪ 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If I create a two-dimensional work of art, then I own the rights to reproduce that work of art in photographic form. If I paint a picture and then someone else takes a photograph and distributes it, the photographer has infringed my rights over the picture. For these images to be free use, then the copyright of the original work of art must have expired or be inapplicable. As one was created in 1994 or after, it is very unlikely to be public domain; the other is more likely to be public domain since the arms have been around for centuries but there's no proof of when this particular artwork was first put up. If it was put up recently, it could conceivably still be copyrighted. Unfortunately, wikicommons volunteers do not always get things right. It seems in these cases as though the uploader did not know that they required the permission of the original copyright holder, or that the work they were photographing could be a copyrighted one. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I had assumed Commons images were fine. Will a local FUR deal with the issue? The HBC logo isn't essential, but the newest version of the Canadian arms is, I think. (In which case I'll just use a FUR on the graphic depiction, as it's coloured). → ROUX ₪ 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see if Fasach will accept a fair use rationale for the full color version. Maybe you could replace the HBC logo with File:Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia.svg? DrKiernan (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced the HBC. Will await Fasach's commentary on the other. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead image file has been deleted, so I've replaced it with the free file File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg. Providing you're happy to keep that image, the only thing which concerns me now is that "Coat of Arms" and "coat of arms" seem to be used interchangeably in the article. Should it be capitalized? DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a FUR for the entire achievement; using only the escutcheon doesn't really illustrate much, as it has been unchanged since 1957, and the only change from 1921 was depicting the maple leaves gules instead of vert. Regarding the case, I have used (and just fixed inconsistencies) lowercase when dealing with the general concept, and uppercase when dealing with specific achievements. → ROUX ₪ 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you pinged Fasach Nua to revisit the Oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the files on which Fasach Nua and I raised concerns are in the article now. DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

<indent> The article now uses only one non-free image File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg, comparing it side by side with the free File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg, I can't see a lot of difference, and WP:NFCC requires that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I don't believe the non-free image contains enough new information to justify itself. Regrettably the oppose remains, all be it now for a different reason than had originally been given. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the images again. The differences are important, most notably the addition of the ribbon of the Order of Canada surrounding the escutcheon. I am afraid, without sounding like a dick, that you don't know enough about the subject matter to realize how important the differences are. Further, the 1994 version is the official depiction; we use current corporate logos in articles about companies. The COA can in very real terms be considered Canada's logo. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The ribbon is plain text, and can easily be described with ... plain text. On the second issue there is no blanket allowance to use corporate logos, and these are judged on a case by case basis against wp:nfcc, which this image fails. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that it cannot easily be described with plain text. Whatever; your very first comment here indicated you were more interested in simply opposing over incredibly nitpicky details rather than actually making helpful suggestions and working collaboratively. As such, I'm simply going to disregard your opinion.→ ROUX ₪ 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Question re next steps

I believe I have addressed all the issues outlined above. How do we move towards determining support/oppose for promotion to FA? → ROUX ₪ 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Just one more incredibly minor point: The article uses Template:Mdash, which inserts spaces before and after the mdash, but the Manual of Style says mdashes should be unspaced. This is clearly a conflict between the template and the MoS. Perhaps just use plain code for this rather than the template? I don't especially mind personally, but you're bound to have someone complain. On the one fair-use image in the article, I've bolstered the fair use rationale to explain that this particular image is especially pertinent to the topic matter because it is an example which fuses traditional French and British motifs with specifically Canadian symbols, and it is the only Arms of Canada designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority. Perhaps you should ping Fasach and ask him to revisit? DrKiernan (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed; pinged. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support as I think the image issue has been largely resolved as has the other comments above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't done a detaield study of this but this paragraph immediately catches my eye:

In much the same way that there is a national coat of arms, each province and territory possesses its own unique arms;[38] Saskatchewan's is known formally as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Saskatchewan.[39] The year after Confederation, Queen Victoria issued Royal Warrants assigning arms to Canada's original four provinces: Québec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.[3]

That "Saskatchewan's is known formally as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Saskatchewan" seems like an afterthought forced in wherever it will fit. OK, so accounts for Saskatchewan. What about the others? Why are they not considered? Nothing in the surrounding text indicates it is to be considered purely as an example, or that it is somehow unique in having a formal title. As such it seems distractingly out of palce - either cut that or account for the others. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already addressed this, in the section by DrKiernan above. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed seem like an odd afterthought insertion in this context. I don't know why I'm being blamed for its presence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing your name mentioned anywhere on this page. → ROUX ₪ 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't mentioned specifically, but I can't think of anyone else you and DrKiernan would together label an "aggressive monarchist"; both of you have made your opinions of me clear before (not to imply that I necessarily agree with them). If there's someone else the two of you had in mind, I'll retract my second statement above and apologise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing, I don't see any indication that anyone has done a sourcing spotcheck, for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked refs 7,8, 18 and 21 and they looked in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will note for the record that I do not believe any of my writing violates any copyrights or plagiarizes any material. I suspect in some cases the paraphrasing may be close, but there are only so many ways to say the same thing without torturing the English language.→ ROUX ₪ 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked verifiability; see my point 9 [9] (now struck) and my follow-up to point 2 [10] (also now addressed). DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments - I'll go through with straightforward prose tweaks (revert if I guff the meaning) and jot pending queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

...in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement - okay, I am a heraldry neophyte but I am stumped at what "achievement" means here....??

In June 2008, MP Pat Martin introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling on the government to amend the coat of arms to incorporate symbols representing Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples - umm, has it happened yet?

'Achievement of arms' is another way of saying 'award of arms'; it refers to the entire shebang--escutcheon, and crests/supporters/motto/compartment (if any). Coat of arms can be used to refer only to the escutcheon. No, it hasn't happened. Martin was a minority MP at the time. It was one of those motions that says much while accomplishing little, in the full knowledge that it would accomplish little. Political grandstanding, but important for what it was requesting. → ROUX ₪ 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured the second was something along those lines (i.e. had anything developed, it would have been added). okay, neither of those are deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support I'll support after these concerns have been addressed.
  • "In June 2008, MP Pat Martin introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling on the government to amend the coat of arms to incorporate symbols representing Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples." That was June 2008 (as it clearly states). What happened to the motion?
  • If you put two images next to each other, sometimes they create gaps below the smaller of the two. Is there a way you can fix this? (floating, maybe?)
  • "...(making it the oldest coat of arms in the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom[2]), in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement." Um, why was it replaced?
  • why is "heraldic heiress" italicized?
  • Parts of sections Personal and Obtaining arms are similar. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In order: see directly above, where I have already addressed this point. Nothing happened to the motion, as far as I can find out, it was political theatre. But important nonetheless. Not much I can do about the gaps while retaining a simple and visually pleasing layout (I categorically refuse to do the nonsensical L-R alternating images; it is poor graphic design, period, and makes articles less functionally readable for a wide variety of reasons, most important of which is that it breaks where our eyes return to after finishing the previous line). Why was the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia replaced? That is covered in both the article about the arms and in the references given. It seemed like unnecessary detail to go into, but short version: the record of the original grant was unavailable, and Victoria simply signed Letters Patent creating coats of arms for all the provinces involved in Confederation. Blank slate, as it were. Heraldic heiress was italicized to indicate that it is a specific term. The only part of the Personal and Obtaining sections that is similar is the opening sentence; 'parts' is inaccurate. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

@wikicopter, you may have missed Roux replying to me about the motion..looks like it just...umm...fizzled. It's a bummer sometimes when you are writing a Featured Article and you know something didn't happen but you can't cite something as not happening because you can't find a source which says it didn't happen. Meh. Part of the fun of writing really :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.