Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canadian Heraldic Authority/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:02, 16 March 2007.

Canadian Heraldic Authority

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Mb1000, Canada, and Heraldry and vexillology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article on a very important heraldic topic. I think, though, that it does not quite meet the FA guidelines in its present form. I'd be interested in hearing what others think and listening to ideas on how to make it better (short of a complete rewrite). It seems that this article could use some help in its references, and the formatting could use some work to make it more attractive. The standard of prose is also not met in my opinion. It falls short of being "compelling, even brilliant." I think that these problems are fixable, but it will take some work and I'd like some suggestions on what specifically can be done. Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've long given up on finding truly "compelling" on Wikipedia.

The two main things I would definitely hold against the article without even reading it (which I'll try to do) are over-reliance on image galleries and lists, as well as lack of inline citations, both of which should be easily remedied to.Circeus 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I've got some reference material at home that will probably be able to back up some of the statements made. I'll see if I can find some of this information in the next couple days (or weeks) to fill things out.--Eva ^bd 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does have potential, but more work is needed. For instance, in the section "Constitutionality", there is a wildly inaccurate accessment of thelegal position, completely ignoring the prerogative, and making a statement about immunity from law which is wholly incorrect. The first paragraph is also not helpful, with its statements about the cost of the College of Arms and Lord Lyon - the CHA is scarcely cheap (its grants can be more expensive than Scottish grants) - and lack of familiarity with Canadian history and symbols. These errors were found simply by looking at these two sections, which suggests that there must be many more elsewhere.Ncox 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "Constitutionality" section was just added to the article a couple of days ago. In fact, this recent addition is what prompted me to start this FAR in the fisrt place. It was added by an IP user that refuses to sign any posts. He listed a couple of websites on the talk page, but they are both rec.heraldry references that are hardly definitive sources. Heraldic law is not my thing, so if you wouldn't mind doing some corrections here, that would be great. I've read some of your work in the "Double Tressure" and the "Coat of Arms," and think that you're qualified.--Eva ^bd 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the grammar issues were caused by me, so I do apologize for that. Honestly, I do not know much about heraldry and when I was working with others on this FA, I admit I didn't know much and put in what I found on the website of the CHA. Regardless, I will take out the badge photos of the various positions and I might remove the coat of arms of Mme. Jean since under our fair use policy, we really need to discuss the arms, not just display it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post, Scout. I'm sure that any grammatical problems can be remedied with some proof reading and copy editing. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome. I can provide sources, just give me a few days (stuck in the middle of classes and the USA Sevens tourney near my home). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC — no work done yet. — Deckill er 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are refernces and formatting (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove there are only 2 references (Canadian Heritage and the Authority itself). DrKiernan 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Unfortunately. I'm sure we can get this back up to FA after a bit of work, but it just doesn't cut it right now. In the summer I ought to have more time to help fix it up.--Eva ^bd 14:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.