Talk:Canadian heraldry/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status (per your polite request on my talk page!) and should have the full review up within the next couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the entire article; it should not have new information and therefore should have no need of refs. Same with images.

Short paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.

Due to the referencing issues (see below) I have not done a complete check of the prose yet. As soon as I see the referencing issues mostly addressed, I will run through the prose.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All web references need publishers and access dates. This is my main concern with the article at the moment.

There are a few areas that need refs:

The ends of the first two paragraphs of the State and national section.

The end of the first paragraph of the Provincial section

The first paragraph of the Cadency section

The last paragraph of the Marks of cadency subsection
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
You may want to check your fair use rationales, as well as your use of fair use images. All four of your main images are fair-use (as far as I can tell), with no explanations for why fair use is reasonable for this article. I'm not an images/fair-use expert, or I'd actually help out instead of telling you to do it :)

You are missing images for three of the marks of cadency. Is this because you cannot find representational images, or for another reason?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. However, I have some issues with MOS and referencing concerns, which I have detailed above. Also, as noted above, I have not completed a full check of the prose, due to my concerns over the references. If you have any questions, please leave a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to fail this article, as a week has passed with very little work being done on it. Most of the issues above still need to be addressed. There has been some work done adding access dates to web references and removing fair-use images, but many of the MOS violations and referencing deficiencies still persist. When these concerns have been addressed, I look forward to seeing this article renominated at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]