Talk:The Famous Five (Canada)

Name of Article

The "The Valiant Five" probably is less used than "The Famous Five". But, both are used. And, since this artcle is named "The Valiant Five", it seems that term must be used as the standard everywhere in wikipedia, including on the individual women's pages. The term "Famous Five" should appear as the alternate name, in each article. I wouldn't object to changing this, but if you do, please do everywhere, and be consistent. --rob 5 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

• Strange that this article was renamed "the Valiant Five", when "The Famous Five" is by far the most common name. Skeezix1000 12:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was worth renaming the article, it would have probably make sense to update the articles of the actual members, who in some cases still only use the "valiant" term. Most backlinks still are to "valiant". --Rob 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It would also be worth mentioning it to the user who moved the article, who has yet to post a comment here. --Skeezix1000 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Although I'm here after the fact, kudos on the move of this article to "The Famous Five". Skeezix1000's assessment on which is the more common name is probably the correct one, and it always had me scratching my head why the article had (arguably) the less prominently used title. Fluit 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First woman elected in the Empire?

• I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the woman who was elected to the Albertan legislature as "the first woman elected to a legislature in the British Empire." Countess Constance Markievicz was elected to Westminster for Sinn Fein in 1918, but she didn't take her seat. This may be my error, but I'm wondering if it's an inaccuracy (first woman to take up the seat maybe? first woman elected to a federal legislature?) or a case of wiki exaggeration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.26.123 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Louise McKinney was elected to the Alberta Legislature in the Alberta General Election, 1917. Countess Markievicz was elected in the British general election of 1918. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for The Famous Five (Canada)

This article is well-written in a precise and accurate manner. The writer is successful in providing the reader an unbiased view of the events that the “Famous Five” were involved in. However, it should be considered that the article is quite short and lacking certain details. An example would be more detail on social context, as in conditions for women in this time period. The article is successful in demonstrating the impact that the “Famous Five” had on women’s rights. In this article it is not explained why these five women created the petition or why there was so much political resistance. A reader may be left with questions on how the “Famous Five” achieved their goal. The article demonstrates the idea that public opinion on the “Famous Five” differed at the time. Yet, when it is mentioned that some people are “disturbed” by some of the women’s opinions on other issues, the statement is not explained and it would be beneficial to have more detail on this point. The article provides accurate dates and gives the reader a general overview of the achievements of the “Famous Five”. The article demonstrates this information with an appropriate level of language and proficient vocabulary. There are links provided for each individual member of the “Famous Five” yet practically no information about each woman on this article page. It could be considered useful to add background information on these women as to how they joined together to become “The Famous Five”. On this particular page there is no detail whatsoever to their age and how they came to be known as a group rather than different activists with similar views. The article does list its references however, there are still some citations needed within the article. There are some high-quality visuals of statues made in honour of the “Famous Five” but no pictures of the women as they were living. The visuals are more focused on symbols of memorial of the women rather than insight into how they were in their time of activism. This could be a welcome addition to the article. An external link is given of the “Famous Five Foundation” yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. It should be considered to include more information on why the foundation was created within the article so that the reader may understand why the external link is included. It is mentioned what each member of the “Famous Five” did in their respective careers, yet more information could be added to any further achievements after they were successful in the “Persons Case”. This could possibly include why it was decided to make them “honorary senators” as well as how they became members of activism and political change. The article has been made accurate as well as to the point but some effort could be made to make it more detailed and interesting for the reader. The introduction of the article is not laid out particularly well as the information on the petition is thrown together in the first paragraph rather than laid out in any certain structure. This can be rather confusing to read and understand. Overall, the quality of the article could be improved in length and detail yet its comprehensiveness is relatively satisfactory. The coverage of the topic is general and could use some improvement to make it more informative as to who the “Famous Five” were as a group. The referencing is mostly completed with just a couple citations missing. Although there are links provided to give more specific information, it would still be an improvement to add detail to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcoutts12 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You are correct about those details which are missing from the article. I'm glad you picked up on the "disturbed" part. The article strays off topic there and should stick with the group's impact; their personal traits should be discussed in the own biography articles. maclean (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

History 208 Review

I would like to start out by saying the referencing throughout the article looks really good. The first thing I noticed was the lack of headings, and organization. The more headings there are the less intimidating it is as a reader, do this instead of bullets for the woman’s names. The lead paragraph is the only real part of the article that I had difficulty reading. Remember that many people who read your article will have no background knowledge of what the famous five did so I would like to see more information even if it is just a brief summary of what "section 24" says about persons. You did a great job of staying on topic in the article and staying on topic. Everything seems well done and accurate. There are a couple spots that need more information like where it states that the "petition was filled" what petition? and small grammatical errors that could make it sound more fluent like in the introduction you state "in the case Edwards vs. Canada" just add a of in between case and Edwards. Also the new headings added and the organization from other Wikipedia authors that were added after your input I would keep but I would like to see the section that was deleted put back into the article but underneath its own separate heading and not in the introduction. Also I would like to suggest that anytime throughout the article when you mention a woman specifically it should be under the specific title with her name just to ease the readers looking for specific detail. Otherwise excellent article. It wouldn’t hurt to go through everything again and just look carefully at where you think another one could be added. It was very thorough with a great deal of relevant information and stayed on topic. I think you did a really good job! I am excited to see what it looks like when it is completed!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbourne (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)