Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Removal from the Order of Canada/archive1

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. I had two attempts before, but since the last one, I had it spell and grammar checked and the images have not changed a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Since the book depicted in Image:AlanEaglesonbookcover.jpg is not discussed in the article, use of the image is not "fair use". --Carnildo 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure it really makes sense to me to have an article about removal from the order as a standalone. Should this not be merged into Order of Canada? It seems to me on reading it that the prose is far from concise and could be condensed substantially in any case. There are also numerous spelling errors at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an AFD that asked for this article to be merged into the main Order of Canada (also an FA), but after I beefed it up, many who voted merge said to vote keep instead. I still believe this can stand out on its own. I also fixed the spelling errors and I also made the article into British English. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would change anything, but shouldn't this be in Canadian English? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will get the Firefox spell check add in for the Canadian EN and run that through all Order of Canada related articles. Zach (Sound Off) 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only word that seems to have issues is "criticised," but I am not sure how it is spelt in Canada EN. Other than that, the article is fine on the "spelling" front, unless something is added to it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian spelling typically uses -ize over -ise. — mendel ☎ 20:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object—prose not good enough. Here's just one example:

'though the removal process is started by individual Canadians or by various groups inside of Canada'.

It's a false contrast to use 'though' (better 'although') here. 'Initiated' rather than 'started'. Remove redundant 'of'. 'Inside Canada', in any case, is another false contrast, because the institution is also that. Needs thorough editing to be considered for nomination. I agree with the comments above about the need to merge this with the related article. Tony 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I fixed the above statement, but I had the article copyedited before I sent it here. I am still against the idea of a merge, since the AFD I pointed out earlier called for a merge, but was defeated. I personally believe this article can stand out on its own. Tony, if you think my grammar is not that great (which you said this at other FAC's I started/worked on), then I welcome you to come in and fix it yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The process of removal may be interesting, but it has only been successfully applied against two OoC recipients (Alan Eagleson and David Ahenakew) and is therefore not significant enough (i.e., there are other worthy candidate articles) for nomination. As well, more of Eagleson's situation should be described (being the first inductee removed), and the syntax and content of the article can be improved upon (e.g., Christie or Christy)? E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]