Talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article does not qualify for GA status at this time. I encourage editors to renominate once the below issues have been addressed

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • Only the first letter of a section heading should be capitalized (unless there are proper nouns)
  •  Done Left proper nouns and titles of events as capitals only.
  • Some formatting issues in Notes, for example current ref 82.
  •  Done
  • Perhaps have "Terminology" (without "Controversial") as its own section, right before History?
  •  Done Moved to see how it looks
  • Why is the title "Aboriginal peoples in Canada" and the bolded phrase in the lead "Aboriginal people in Canada"?
Sorry did not see this note before has an s because we name the article to match the wording used by the 1991 royal Commissions (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples ) and is it also used by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
  • Quite a big article for a summary - some of the information should probably be put in daughter articles
This will be the next bit to do....Need to get the article near completion before one can say what is not desperately necesary to the main flow of the concept.
An old version is 8,110 words, 45,736 characters, 118 paragraphs, 724 lines long of readable prose not including tables, infoboxes, references, see also, TOC or picture summaries...and it asks for 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose...on Wikipedia:Article size It asks that ancient browsers cannot handle over 32kb in size,..and still do some cell phone browsers but current web browsers collapse at 400kb....Should we add one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors...? It has since been shortened again. Forgot to put that version number in...

The article number 318390529 article provides a readable word count of 7,438.

  • Spelling should be consistently Canadian - there are some American spellings that need to be changed

American to Canadian format: organise, recognise, realise, travelled, programme, metre not the American organize, recognize, realized, traveled, program, meter Civilization is in the title of many articles quoted from Civilization Canada, so cannot be changed...Will again re-check this with auto peer reviewer when all changes are nearing completion. Meter is picked up from cemetery so cannot be changed to cemetrey.  ;-)

  • Some of the stuff talked about in the lead isn't mentioned in the article, and much of the article is not mentioned in the lead. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article.
  •  Done The lead has had changes initiated, it can be expanded, but the lead introduces the article and points to all the sections.
  • There's a lack of encyclopedic tone in some areas
  •  Done
  • CE and BCE should be spelled out or linked on first appearance
  • Needs general copyedit - some areas are lacking in clarity
  •  Done
  • Should avoid conditional verb constructions unless absolutely necessary. Also try to avoid passive voice
  •  Done Found all those which both Auto peer review and MS word found...
  • There's no need to use both bullets and numbering at the same time
  •  Done Left bullets
  • List of notable Métis should be converted to prose
Work in progress
  •  Done culled some, added some.
  • List of notable aboriginal people is too long; some people should be taken out (possibly put in a daughter page?)
Started to do some weeding already....will mayhaps have to do more,... added those correspoding to lea images, so now some should go away  :-(
  • "See also" links should not be duplicated in the text. It's recommended that these links be alphabetized
  •  Done mentioned in notable people
  • Eight wikilinks point to disambiguation pages
Is there a robot that identifies these?
You can use either this script or this one
Thank you.
 Done Fixed these links to disambiguation pages Clovis, Kitikmeot, Linguistic, Navajo, Nootka, Peigan, Spears and Scraper (archaeology) using first tool.
  •  DoneAvoid using "we" or abbreviations like "e.g."
Removed e.g., left the use of we as in this case it is in a quotation of how the terminology is used.
Not done - there's another "we" in the early history section
  •  Done - thank you missed that one, in the many instances of web and were and however that come up in a control F find.
  • Avoid wikilinking the same term more than once
Is there a robot to find these at all or is it just a visual thing betwixt various editor's revisions?
  •  Done I think this was mainly the prose section of notable people repeating wikilinks of first Nation, Métis and Inuit, but tis fixed now, and ...Northwest Territiories.
Not done No bot, unfortunately, it's a visual thing, and I still see a few. Also, milleniums probably should not be linked, but feel free to add other unique relevant wikilinks.
  •  Done..Looks ok to me..pls double check
  • Aboriginals can't really be called the "initial founders of the Americas" - maybe "initial inhabitants"?
  •  Done
  • Be consistent in the use of hyphens/dashes
The words hyphenated are.... Paleo-Indian, Pre-Dorset, pre-date, mid-17th, inter-tribal, Self-Government, Post-Archaic, 1000 BCE – present, Bill C-31, Thirty-five, gender-specific, self-identification, three-step, ice-age, ice-free, human-worked, pre-glacial, hunter-gatherers, 11,000 -10,000, re-visited, skin-covered, pre-Columbian, Na-Dene, Athabascan- speaking, multi-family, 8000-7000, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Nuu-chah-nulth, sea-mammal, long-distance, Pre-Columbian, Post-Archaic, pre-pottery, pointed-bottom, flake-stone, marine-oriented, oil-burning, 500 BCE- 1000 AD, un-organised, Norse-made, 14th-century, Anglo-Métis, non-status, ever-changing, short-form, pre-existing, five-volume, 4,000-page, non-Aboriginal, non-self-governing, self-government, ten-year, self-determination, Aboriginal-designed and -controlled not-for-profit, well-being, multi-nation, by-product, European-style, Non-Status, non-indigenous, Eskimo-Aleut, Montagnais-Naskapi, Oji-Cree, Kutchin-Gwich’in, Historica-Dominion, inter-cultural, re-invent, Blondin-Andrew, Tsleil-Waututh, Award-nominated, singer-songwriter, Irish-Algonquin,widely-travelled, single-word, culture - Qaujimajatuqangit, Watt-Cloutier, co-founder, post-Confederation, North-West, 1837-1906, Rochon-Burnett, Canadian-American,
Sometimes it is 11,000 to 10,000 using the word to instead of a dash.
The words using dashes are .... Era BCE – 8000 BCE, 8000 BCE – 1000 BCE, 1000 BCE – present, BCE – 8000 BCE, 12,900 – 11,500, BCE – 1000 BCE, BCE – present, First Nations – Federal Crown Political Accord:,
  •  Done
  • Avoid run-on sentences
  •  Done MS word found many of these, and they were changed, shall re-read backwards with a fresh eye later tonight
  • There are some inconsistencies in capitalisation that should be addressed
  •  Done Fixed First Nation and Aboriginal to be capitals
  • You've got some terms italicized in the text that shouldn't be - for example, The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis
  •  Done
  • Blockquote should be used only for quotations of 4+ lines
  •  Done I don't see this anymore, but it was there before, so I am believing it is done.
Not done - it's under "Terminology"
  •  Done

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • A couple of web references are missing access dates
  •  Done -pls note this was done after reflist on this page and double check this as ther are over 200 to look at
  • All quotes must be cited
  •  Done - both are done
  • The "References" section is not italicized properly
  •  Done---well i think you mean layout|templates of references
  • Citations needed for:
  • These bodies however are not recognised by indigenous people in Canada as representing their interests.
  •  Done was in old lead..its now gone.
  • It assessed past government policies toward Aboriginal people, such as residential schools, and provided policy recommendations to the government.
  • According to archeological and genetic evidence, North and South America were the last continents in the world to be inhabited by human beings.
  • One is that people walked south via an ice-free corridor on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, and then fanned out across North America before continuing on to South America.[3] The other is that they migrated, either on foot or using primitive boats, down the Pacific Coast to the tip of South America, and then crossed the Rockies and Andes to populate the rest of the lands.[4] Either or both are possible, but evidence of the latter would have been covered by a sea level rise of hundreds of metres since the last ice age.[5]
  •  Done
  • This is a hot source of debate and will be for years to come[6]
  •  Done-Article discuses 3 different migration routes, thus i believe it shows the ongoing debate..Pls see if this is ok
  • The theory of an ice-free corridor running north and south through Alberta during the Late Wisconsin period was introduced by geologists in the 1950s
  • Some theorists are seeking to develop a colonization model that integrates both North and South American new archaeological records.
  • The Na-Dene people occupy much of northwest and central North America starting around 8000 BCE
  • They prospered from approximately 7000 BCE (9,000 years ago) into modern times along the Atlantic Coast of North America.[10]
  •  Done Copy edit - 7000 BCE to 1500 BCE (9,000-3500 years ago)-
  • The Woodland Cultural period dates from about 1000 BCE to 1000 AD and is associated with Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime regions.
  • Many aboriginal civilizations had long faded by the time of the first permanent European arrivals (c. late 15th–early 16th centuries), and are known only through archaeological investigations.
  • Researchers believe that the Dorset culture lacked dogs, larger weapons and other technologies that gave the expanding Inuit society an advantage over them.
  • Boundary disputes were common and gave rise to aggressive actions
  • It is unclear whether they were there as the result of trade or plunder
  • It seems likely that some of their fathers spoke Gaelic, thus leading to the development of the dialect of English referred to as "Bungee"
  • Métis French is best preserved in Canada, Michif in the United States, notably in the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation of North Dakota, where Michif is the official language of the Métis that reside on this Chippewa reservation.[17] The encouragement and use of Métis French and Michif is growing due to outreach within the provincial Métis councils after at least a generation of decline.[17] There is substantial controversy and disagreement over who exactly is Métis.[18] Unlike First Nations people and Inuit, there is no distinction between status and non-status.[18] The legal definition itself is not yet fully developed.[18]
  •  Done
  • the First Nations saw these agreements as meant to last "as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow."
  •  Done copy edit-the First Nations saw these agreements in treaty 8 as meant to last "as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow."[19]
  • are occasionally used as descriptive terms by U.S. Native Americans in solidarity with their First Nations relatives.
  •  Done- Statement removed can't find ref ..added [20] to sentence before deleted item (sentence) that shows many terminologies and does not mention any solidarity use of term.
  • A more recent trend is for members of various nations to refer to themselves by their tribal or national identity only
  • Although Indian remains in place as the legal term used in the Canadian Constitution, its usage outside such situations can be considered offensive, well Aboriginals is more commonly used to describe all Indigenous peoples of Canada.[22] 'The confusion with term Indian can likely trace its lineage to the European explorer Christopher Columbus who was thoroughly convinced that he had discovered a new route to India.[23] It also refers to self-identification of Aboriginal people who live within Canada, but who have not chosen to accept the extinction of their rights of Sovereignty or Aboriginal Title of their lands.[22]
update in bold from above I have removed this statement i read it - it seem more and more out of place we need space
  •  Done
  • In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favour, as it is considered pejorative by the Indigenous peoples of the area and has been replaced by the term Inuit.[24] But, the Yupik of Alaska and Siberia do not consider themselves Inuit, and ethnographers agree they are a distinct people.[24]
  •  Done
  • Most aboriginal political organizations arise from the need to be united and to have their opinions heard.
  • There are more reserves in Canada than there are First Nations, which were ceded multiple reserves by treaty.
  • Indian reserves, established in Canadian law by treaties such as Treaty 7, are the very limited contemporary lands of First Nations recognised by the non-indigenous governments[27]
  •  Done
  • Today, there are over thirty different languages spoken by indigenous people, most of which are spoken only in Canada and are in decline.
  • Among those with the most speakers include Anishinaabe and Cree, together totalling up to 150,000 speakers; Inuktitut, with about 29,000 speakers in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik (Northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador); and Mi'kmaq, with around 8,500 speakers, mostly in Eastern Canada.
  •  Done sentences removed- found out that the info was from 1998 and very dated--new totals are already listed in chart bellow this old sentence.
  • In Nunavut, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun are official languages alongside English and French, and Inuktitut is a common vehicular language in government
  • Many of the artworks preserved in museum collections date from the period after European contact and show evidence of the creative adoption and adaptation of European trade goods such as metal and glass beads.
  • Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew only by 29% but after the 1960s the infant mortality level on reserves dropped dramatically and the population grew by 161%.
  • The day was first celebrated in 1996, after it was proclaimed that year, by then Governor General of Canada Roméo LeBlanc, to be celebrated on June 21 annually.[32] Most provincial jurisdictions, however, do not recognize it as a statutory holiday.[32] (there is a citation, but it doesn't support any of this)
  •  Done--old reference removed-
  •  Done
  • Note 14 has a doi error
  • Ref works fine for me...pls explain further
Okay, that's still doesn't work in the article, but the link here works. Not sure what's causing that...Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Donefixed had an extra period at the end .
  • Formatting problems with several notes
  •  Done
  • Tertiary sources like encyclopedias should be avoided where possible
  •  Done...have changed all but 2 out of 200+ refs
  • Note 38 is not a reliable source - see WP:RS[37]
  •  Done-- but info from 1962...this is all i can find in my libraries at Ottawa says " By 1975 45-65 percent of all crops grow in the world will be Americanizations of plant species.
  • Note which links require login/subscription to access
  • i cant find any ?? (buzzz)
  • Given that none of the References are in Notes, the section should be renamed "Further reading"
  •  Done
  • Some of the notes are incomplete - for example, "McGhee 1992:194" is not a complete citation
* Done
  • Reference added that i believe is needed ...but was over looked
 Done - Several more localised regional cultures developed from the time of the Younger Dryas cold climate period from 12,900 – 11,500 years ago.[38]
  1. ^ "THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES". Mary C. Hurley, Law and Government Division, Jill Wherrett, Political and Social Affairs Division. Geovernment of Canada (Library of Canada). 4 October 1999. Retrieved 2009-10-06.  line feed character in |title= at position 35 (help)
  2. ^ "Atlas of the Human Journey - The Genographic Project". National Geographic Society. 1996–2008. Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  3. ^ "Alberta History pre 1800 - Jasper Alberta". Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  4. ^ "Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America". American Antiquity, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), p2. Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  5. ^ "68 Responses to "Sea will rise 'to levels of last Ice Age'"". Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University. Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  6. ^ "Getting to the New World". D. Andrew Merriwether & Robert E. Ferrell, University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved 2009-09-18. 
  7. ^ Wilson, M. C., and J. A. Burns (1999) Searching for the earliest Canadians: wide corridors, narrow doorways, small windows. In: R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire (eds.) Ice Age People of North America: Environments, Origins and Adaptations, pp. 213. Oregon State University Press and Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
  8. ^ "History of Alberta - The Ancient Past". Friends of the Wild West Agriculture & Music Society. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  9. ^ "American Indian Heritage Month: Commemoration vs. Exploitation". ABC-CLIO. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  10. ^ "Museum Notes - The Maritime Archaic Tradition". By James A. Tuck -The Rooms Provincial Art Gallery. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  11. ^ "The Woodland Period ca. 2000 B.C.- A.D. 1000". The Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC). Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  12. ^ Gordon R. Willey and Philip Phillips (1957). Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press. p.1(introduction) ISBN 978-0-226-89888-9
  14. ^ "Innu Culture 3. Innu-Inuit 'Warfare'". 1999, Adrian Tanner Department of Anthropology-Memorial University of Newfoundland. Retrieved 2009-10-05.  line feed character in |work= at position 20 (help)
  15. ^ "Inuit Post-Contact History". Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  16. ^ Blain, Eleanor M. (1994). The Red River dialect. Winnipeg: Wuerz Publishing.Bungee(Canadian Encyclopedia)
  17. ^ a b "The Problem of Michif". By Peter Bakker -Metis Resource Centre (ISBN 0-19-509711-4). Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  18. ^ "What is Treaty 8?". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  19. ^ "Terminology of First Nations, Native, Aboriginal and Metis (NAHO)" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  20. ^ "Language and Identity". By John Edwards - Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  21. ^ a b "Terminology". Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  22. ^ American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court -By David E. Wilkins-University of Texas Press ISBN: 978-0-292-79109-1
  23. ^ a b ""Eskimo" vs. "Inuit"". Expansionist Party of the United States. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  24. ^ "Post-war Rise of Political Organizations". Library and Archives Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  25. ^ "The First Nations- Communities: Reserves". The Literacy Community. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  26. ^ "Land Claims, Ownership, and Co-management" (pdf). University of the Arctic. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  27. ^ "Aboriginal languages". Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  28. ^ "Nunavut's Languages". Office of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut. Retrieved 2009-10-02. 
  29. ^ "Native Art". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  30. ^ "Aboriginal peoples of Canada". Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  31. ^ a b "National Aboriginal Day History". Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  32. ^ "Constitution Act, 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Department of Justice. Government of Canada. 1982. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  33. ^ "Old Crow Flats". TAIGN co-operative environmental and community web network dedicated to Northern Canada & Alaska. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  34. ^ "Hopewell-Ohio History Central". 
  35. ^ Gordon, Raymond G Jr. (2005), Ethnologue: Languages of the world (Web Version online by SIL International (formerly known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics)) (15 ed.), Dallas, TX: SIL International, ISBN 1-55671-159-X 
  36. ^ Foreign agriculture, Volumes 24 p.167 (1962) By United States. Foreign Agricultural Service, United States. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States.
  37. ^ Kennett DJ, Kennett JP, West A; et al. (2009). "Nanodiamonds in the younger dryas boundary sediment layer". Science (journal). 323 (5910): 94. doi:10.1126/science.1162819. PMID 19119227.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);


  • Too much detail in Notable aboriginals, not enough in Politics, Law and Legislation
Added too section Politics, Law and Legislation- new sub-section (with refs) Royal Commission see -->Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Royal Commission
  • Louis Riel deserves more mention than a single bullet point
 Done added more, and exchanged a few notable people


MS word spell and grammar check is picking up a lot of these, but is ending up in edit conflict, so shall return in a bit...SriMesh | talk 17:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 DoneReturned and finished MS word and grammar check which finds passive voice, and looked at Automatic peer reviewer which picks up weasal words, and they seem OK now.
  • Look at WP:ASF - opinions of researchers may be offered, but only facts should be asserted
  • Lacking in encyclopedic tone in places
I think the above checks have fixed these.


No issues noted


  • Lead images - these images cannot be said to represent the article when Capilano and Ulrikab are pictured but not mentioned anywhere in the text
  •  Done the people who are imaged in the lead infobox are now in the article.
  • Clovis point.jpg needs a date
  • Source link on Chippewa_men_Bad_River.jpg is broken, and it should have a more descriptive caption
  •  Done-simply replaced photo
  • Const-proc.png is tagged as requiring reduction. It also has no fair-use rationale for this article
  •  Done -simply removed photo
  • In "Demographics", the image doesn't match the list of areas - missing Northwest Coast
  •  Done

since GA review[edit]

Well ok lots to fix but i see no problem with most of the Citations needed you mentioned??

I dont think a reference is need for every sentence especially if it has a link to a main article on the subject.

like - According to archeological and genetic evidence, North and South America were the last continents in the world to be inhabited by human beings.[1]

-'This is a hot source of debate and will be for years to come. did you see the link to (Further information: Understanding the time debate) ????

Although Indian remains in place as the legal term used in the Canadian Constitution, its usage outside such situations can be considered offensive, well Aboriginals is more commonly used to describe all Indigenous peoples of Canada, were the term Native is only used in the United Stats of America. The confusion with term Indian can likely trace its lineage to the European explorer Christopher Columbus who was thoroughly convinced that he had discovered a new route to India. It also refers to self-identification of Aboriginal people who live within Canada, but who have not chosen to accept the extinction of their rights of Sovereignty or Aboriginal Title of their lands.[2]}} well this ref i cant see getting much better??? It clearly says indian in its terminology.

There are more reserves in Canada than there are First Nations, which were ceded multiple reserves by treaty This is not a debate. This fact can easily be seen in the list on First Nations govenment article.

as for more comments on 'Politics, Law and Legislation.On this this talk page we have discussed this and it had been been shorten as per recommendation by your peers and was split into its own article that technically is also to long.

Louis Riel deserves more mention than a single bullet point---he is mentioned more in the metis article as are all the people from his generation. This article is a general over view of all the related copies. you will notice that beyond 1000 BCE time period has 3 separate articles to cover this time as at this point the history of Inuit, First nations and by the 17thcentury the metis are all distinctive groups and need their own articles.

we have a problem ...the article is too long as you mentioned but you also mention expansion on many topics....this is very confusing..should it be longer or shorter?/ Anywas this is by-far better the may of the articles I have seen Rated GA.

I am not complaining all thought it may seem like it, just confused as to what can be done as most of what you mention was already decide on in many previous debates. (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think that a reference is needed for every sentence. However, any sentence that is an opinion or potentially controversial does need a citation, even if it's covered in another article. The sentence "This is a hot source of debate and will be for years to come" obviously falls into that category. And while the ref you provided does use the term "indian", it doesn't explain either the source of the term or whether/why it is "offensive". While the list article mentioned may have more entries for reserves then for First Nations, wikipedia articles can't cite other wikipedia articles - you need an outside source. The article should be slightly shorter, but the way to do this is not to have a sum total of less information, but rather to split some of the information here into daughter articles (especially in the notable people section) and have a summary here (and I'm sure you'll agree that Riel is notable enough to be mentioned in that summary?). You don't need a larger amount of information, you just need a summary of information that's organized to provide a broad overview and a pointer to more specific information. Hope that clears things up for you. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well tks for the review Nikkimaria.....unlike user 174..etc ....I see what the problem is, but to be honest i dont see that anyone is going to fix all that you mentioned. I am happy with what is here and have no real intent to fix all my self. i guess we will just have to be happy with what we have.

Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up Buzzzz... if you putter away at some, and I will putter away at will soon be done, there may be others who gain interest as well, if we contact a few in the edit history who have shown an interest and ask if they are still interested. We can just put  Done templates after each point with a comment if needed as they are completed and voila!! it can be re-nominated. It is improving very rapidly every time I peek it is better and better. SriMesh | talk 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dame you SriMesh - i was ready to move on to the metis article- but ok i will help- i see your editing now i will do some things tommow.
Good job, good to have you back and then definitely pick up on a few things here and there on the other article as well, you have done such a wonderful job here already!!!! SriMesh | talk 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This may or may not be helpful to anyone working on improving the article (I didn't try it here, so I'm not sure...). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the notes Nikkimaria, you did an in-depth job in your review, and spent quite a lot of time. When the improvements are done, the article will be better, and they are coming around...will take a bit of work. Kind regards SriMesh | talk 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious care[edit]

Has gone into this article and it rocks. Lots and lots of cool information. Problem is it is really long. The other problem is that it is really interesting and long does not seem so bad... but it is super long. I broke up some text and did a tiny amount of copy editing. Maybe it should be shortened, but that would be tough. Making spin-off articles may work... and then linking them to this main article. skip sievert (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

tks :) ....SriMesh and i have been talking about this size problem and are running into a problem that most if not all section already have there own articles ...What we may need to do is just copy edit some stuff out, but like SriMesh was saying to me it all flows so well and will be hard to nitpick out stuff without losing the constance of information...WAS THINKING TO ASK FOR REVIEW guys think we are ready??? or is this size thing a big GA problem? ...notable people section i believe is very important in showing that Aboriginals in Canada have made great contribution to Canadian society in all fields of Canadian culture.

Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I used hide comments for some of the expansion in the bulleted points in the political section, and again removed some more and more notable people. Should the hidden comments be added back in, or does Bill C-31 and Royal Commission read OK now that they are a bit shorter, yet still the politics section is longer with these sub sections added in?SriMesh | talk 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me ....i say add the hide stuff to main articles that way no info is lost in the shorting of this article....feel free to past it all on my sandbox and i will copy edit the stuff to proper articles.

Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So the full text is at User:Buzzzsherman/sandbox,and I will remove from this article SriMesh | talk 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
ok tks Done and Done ...I will go back later to do more fixup..fell fee to jump in anyone :) --->Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples --> Indian Act.........................................About this article Lets put this up for review again. I have informed Nikkimaria hopefully he will have time to be the one (hint-hint-wink-wink) as he has been here all a long watching us.

Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Maybe "he" would help out more if rightly referred to as female:P) And I'll see what I can do, but if it's me, it won't be this weekend as I'm heading home for Thanksgving. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL i am so sorry ...My Queen we will wait for your return to this realm to do the GA evaluation,,it will give us time to weedout some more content and double check things to make it easy on you to do the GA review,, Godspeed my Royal :)

Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I went through the lead again, this time copy editing more trying to take out extraneous language and trying to make it simpler or more direct, also because of the length of the article and the different aspects now in the lead I further broke it into four paragraphs... though this is usually not a great idea it seemed to call for it because of the direction of the writing in the lead... so maybe it would be ok. for now to have four paragraphs. I am wondering about the long charts and graphs in the article about populations and languages breakdown. Is it possible to have links to that material or articles about that instead of having those very long lists of names and numbers in the two sections. If that was eliminated as is a lot of space would shorten in the article length. Article links for curious people might do that, or just links to the government sights that provided the info. - Comments? skip sievert (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes i see that Aboriginal languages chart is also here Spoken languages of Canada#Aboriginal languages ..But looks like the Demographics chart is only here...IT could be moved to Demographics of Canada#Aboriginal status that has the room..........I am willing to do this move ..but will not do the mve until i here from SriMesh or Nikkimaria on the matter..

Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For the language chart, you could reduce its size either by combining languages from the same family (for example, Algonquian languages or Algic languages), or by introducing a cutoff line at some number of speakers and combining every language below that line into "Other". That's not a possibility for Demographics, although you could combine regions (North, Praries, etc) or remove one or more column. My preference would be to have some of this information, even in reduced form, in the main article, with the complete charts in subarticles. However, if size is your concern, one of the two could be removed entirely and its basic statistics (no. of speakers if Language, % of population if Demographics) incorporated into the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we need to do this..before GA review?? or can we leave it for now...I would like to get this to GA and even FA level before more copy edits happen that we need to fix..........I see many many articles that are over sized just like this one,,etc [[[Hitler]], Canada, Rolling stones and on and on.

Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No. IMO, the article can pass GA even with those tables in their current state. If you think the article is ready to be renominated, go ahead. However, I can say fairly confidently that those tables would be problematic at FA level, and that most FA reviewers prefer that all necessary editing be done before the article is even put up on FAC (of course, there will still be editing to do, but at that level there should be nothing major). Also, if it's your intent to head to FAC I can give you a tougher review if you like...:P. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)