Wikipedia:Canada collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada.
Canada collaboration
Current collaboration talk
Prev. collaborations talk
Prev. nominations talk
Participants talk
Templates
Canada COTW talk
Current Canadian COTW talk
CCOTW talk
Category:WikiProject Canada
edit box

The Canada Collaboration is an effort to improve Canada-related articles in Wikipedia, with an aim toward creating a feature-standard article during the month-long cooperative editing process. Anyone can nominate an article, or vote for a nominated article.

The project maintains a list of previously-nominated articles, a list of winning collaborations, and a partial list of participants in the project.

Selecting the next collaboration[edit]

The Canadian Collaboration article selection is suspended.

Nominating an article[edit]

To nominate an article for the Canada collaboration, follow this process:

I.
Add entry to list.

  Edit this article, and append the following to the end of the list:

{{Wikipedia:Canada collaboration/Article}}

Be sure to replace Article with the title of the article you are nominating. Please do not mark the edit as minor. Save the page. You should now see a link to the nomination page in the text; follow it.

For example, this is needed to add Northwest Territories to the list of nominations:

{{Wikipedia:Canada collaboration/Northwest Territories}}
II.
Create the nomination.

  Add this text to the new page:

{{subst:Collaboration | pg=Article | reason=Reason for the nomination.| nom=~~~~}}

Put the page's name in place of "Article" and include your reason after reason=; nothing else should change. For example, the entry to nominate Northwest Territories would be:

{{subst:Collaboration | pg=Northwest Territories | reason=Article about Canadian territory needs to be of high quality.| nom=~~~~}}

If the page was not originally empty, the above text should go at the beginning. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the voting process in your watchlist. Save the page.


If the page you are nominating already exists, please add {{Possible Canada COTW}} to the top of its talk page.

Voting[edit]

If you support an article, please vote by clicking on edit by the article's title, and add a new line with the text "# ~~~~". This will add your username and the time you signed automatically. Please add comments that might help others .

  • Please only add support votes - opposing votes will not affect the result as the choice is done by approval voting (the most votes, wins). Note your opposition under the Comments section.
  • Vote for as many candidates as you like.
  • A vote implies that you will make some contribution to the article if it is chosen.
  • Only registered users should vote.
  • Being Canadian is not a requirement to vote!

Selection[edit]

Each month, the collaboration is chosen based on the article with the largest amount of support. In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins.

When a new selection has been made, the {{Current Canadian COTW}} template should be placed on the successful candidate's article page, and the following files need to be updated:

Pruning[edit]

An article is removed from the list of nominations if it has not reached 3 votes by the end of the next complete choosing interval, or not chosen for two months. Removed nominations are listed at /Removed.

Current Collaboration[edit]

Toronto[edit]

As the country's most populous city, I believe it should have the status of Featured Article, and with all the pontential help the article would receive-with all the cities inhabitants and experts-it could be improved to be of the very best Wikipedia has to offer. Furthermore, being such an international city, Toronto is researched and known all over the world. Therefore, upgrading its quality to that of Featured Articles would not only benefit Canadians in their knowledge of the metropolis, but would also better reveal more comprehensive and exhaustive knowledge to the world.
(vote or comment)

Support:

  1. Tom H. 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. S-Ranger 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Qyd 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Natkeeran 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spookane 11:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Blackjays 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I realize I posted this candidate very late, so if it does not become the collaboration of the month of September, I hope it could be for the month of October. Tom H.

  • The Toronto article is already pretty extensive. What would you suggest needs to be done to it in order to bring it up to FA status? Captmondo 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone who knows how should just nominate it now, I think it would probably be approved as a featured article in its current state. Deet 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's far from FA status, it requires a lot of cleanup. It probably is ready for Peer review (and it needs that). CCOM would be an intermediate step. --Qyd 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of information about the City of Toronto that is not in the article due to the difficulty of finding free, public domain sources. The Toronto Board of Trade, many entities know much about the economy of Toronto (including its GDP, its contribution to Ontario and Canada in revenues generated; and plundered) and it needs to be on the page in the Economics and Politics sections, IMO. Population, rather vague descriptions of very significant industries in Toronto that affect NAFTA let alone the province and country, simply are not made clear in this article due to lack of participation by entities that hold copyrights and other restrictions and/or do not state the facts clearly and with verifiability, should be involved.

How else to get them to participate other than politely lobbying them, en masse, and adding incentives for them (how many hits does this article get per month?) is beyond me. I have tried and they are not interested -- as yet. --S-Ranger 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominations[edit]

Hastings, Ontario[edit]

Hastings, Ontario has now been recognized as a Good Article. I think it is important for Canadians to realize the importance of small villages. After all, it is far easier to write an article about Toronto, for example. It is Canada's largest city. For a village like Hastings, information is scarce, in books and on the Internet. I hope this article helps you learn a lot, if anything, and I hope you find it interesting.

Support: Dhastings 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Good stuff, however I think the photo of a lightning strike in Denver is a non-sequitur. PKT 12:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(vote or comment)

Juno Award[edit]

Canada's premier music awards - what more to say? A content boost could make this a featured article.
(vote or comment)

Support:

  1. Dl2000 02:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Canadian honours system[edit]

Very important topic and low amount of content.
(vote or comment)

Support:

  1. Tarret 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Montreal[edit]

(vote or comment)

The article has tons of information, but still has a lot of problems. It went through Feature article review and had a peer review, but many of the issues raised were not addressed. With a little work it could easily attain featured article status.

Support:

  1. Nominate and Support --Qyd 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Green Party of Canada[edit]

This is a growing force in Canadian politics, and should have an article to reflect that.
(vote or comment)

Support:

  1. GreenJoe 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Pat Binns[edit]

The extensive recent press coverage of this article's edit war, twice on CBC Radio Charlottetown, once on CBC TV Charlottetown, on CBC.ca PEI and CBC.ca Manitoba, in the National Post, Montreal Gazette, PEI Guardian, on Canada.com.
(vote or comment)

Support:

  1. Zanimum 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Alberta[edit]

With such a great influx of immigration, industry and general interest in many aspects recently, the facts about the province should be of higher quality.
(vote or comment)

Support:

  1. Tom H. 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Qyd 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Participants (add name)[edit]

Canadian topics on other Collaborations[edit]

The following topics have been nominated on other collaborative projects. If you are interested in contributing to them, you should add your support. There's no reason we shouldn't lend our interest in Canadian topics to other collaborating teams.

Flag of Vancouver (Canada).svg
Vancouver Collaboration of the Month
Vancouver Landsat.jpg
Every month, a Vancouver- or Greater Vancouver-related topic, stub or nonexistent article is picked to be the Vancouver Collaboration of the Month.

The current COTM is Francesco Aquilini for March, 2006.
(Archived nomination discussion and suggestions for this article.)

Templates[edit]

What to type What it makes What it's for
{{Canada COTW}}
Talk
Flag of Canada.svg The current Canadian Collaboration of the Month is None.

Every month a different Canada-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked.
Please help to improve the article any way you can.

Template for Canada collaboration used f. ex. on Portal:Canada.
{{Current Canadian COTW}}
Talk
This is the current Canadian collaboration of the month! Please help improve it to featured article standard.
Template to put on the front page of each week's collaboration.
{{subst:CCOTW}}
Talk
==CCOTW==
Maple leaf transparent.png You showed support for the selection of a Canada Collaboration.

This month Toronto was selected for improvement.

We hope you can contribute.

Template that informs users about the current Canada collaboration.

Last three collaborations and progress made[edit]

  1. During the editing period, _9_ editors worked on the article.
  2. __ of the __ items on the to-do list were completed.
  3. __ (the article shepherd), thinks that the conclusion/next step for this article is __ (choose one) a) no improvement; b) improvement! c) 'Good Article' nomination; d) Peer Review submission; e) 'FA' nomination. If the choice was c, d or e, __ will be managing the submission.
  4. General comments: The nominator Deet did most of the additions, good work!
  1. During the editing period, _5_ editors worked on the article.
  2. __ of the __ items on the to-do list were completed.
  3. __ (the article shepherd), thinks that the conclusion/next step for this article is __ (choose one) a) no improvement; b) improvement! c) 'Good Article' nomination; d) Peer Review submission; e) 'FA' nomination. If the choice was c, d or e, __ will be managing the submission.
  4. General comments: Low edit interest to this one.
  1. During the editing period, _4_ editors worked on the article.
  2. _2_ of the _7_ items on the to-do list were completed.
  3. __ (the article shepherd), thinks that the conclusion/next step for this article is __ (choose one) a) no improvement; b) improvement! c) 'Good Article' nomination; d) Peer Review submission; e) 'FA' nomination. If the choice was c, d or e, __ will be managing the submission.
  4. General comments: This had less interest than the others.