Wikipedia:Peer review/Canadian heraldry/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian heraldry

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FAC. I've never done so before, and I think this would be the best way to head off possible problems before running the gauntlet.

Thanks, roux   19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Jafeluv

Text in italics is from the article, all other is mine. In some examples I've struck words that I suggest be omitted and added non-italicized words to replace them. These are only suggestions, of course.

Lead:

 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian heraldry derives mainly from heraldic traditions in France... – Wikilink to French heraldry.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A free-use image should be used on the right side of the lead. That's a recommendation, but I feel that it would improve the article.
Unfortunately, coats of arms in Canada tend to be fair-use and thus would be unnecessarily decorative, failing NFCC. I'll dig through Commons and see what I can find. The best seems to be the 1921 COA. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History:

 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says that Canadian heraldry dates back to 1534. Is there a reason not to mention the year in the article?
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern heraldry/Official:

  • signed by the Queen Queen Elizabeth II – Might as well mention the name since "Queen" links to the Elizabeth II article anyway.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern heraldry/State and national:

  • References [4], [7] and [13] are broken.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The personal flag of the Governor General has, since 1981, featured the crest of the arms of Canada on a blue background. – This stand-alone sentence could be merged into the preceding paragraph.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern heraldry/Provincial:

No it shouldn't, the section is about provincial arms, not the national coat of arms. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I meant the main article link in the State and national subsection. My bad. Jafeluv (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked within the first sentence of that section now.. do you think it needs a {{main}} as well? → ROUX ₪ 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already has a {{main}}, which points to Coat of arms of Canada, which redirects to Arms of Canada. My point was to correct the {{main}} link to point directly to Arms of Canada. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry brainfart on my part. Amended. → ROUX ₪ 08:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference [19] is broken.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In much the same way that there is a national coat of arms, each province and territory possesses its own unique arms, known formally in Saskatchewan as Her Majesty's Arms in Right Of Saskatchewan. – Why is Saskatchewan mentioned specifically here?
SK was mentioned because a certain monarchist POV pusher had put "...in right of" for all Canadian provincial/national coats of arms, despite an utter lack of sourcing. In order to avoid the usual tedious arguments from that quarter, I managed to find a reference saying that SK's arms were known as that, though there were no other refs to support for other provinces.
I suggest a rewording. The way it's written now makes it sound like every province's coat of arms was known in Saskatchewan as "Her Majesty's Arms in Right Of Saskatchewan", and not just their own. Also, check the capitalisation: the source uses "Her Majesty's Arms in right of Saskatchewan". Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... derived from the Royal Coats of Arms of the United Kingdom and/or of France. – I don't like the "and/or". Could be reworded to something like "... derived from the coats of arms of the United Kingdom, France, or both."
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • each bear upon their flags have the shield of the local coat of arms on their flags – Simpler wording with the same meaning.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference [33] is broken.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of armorial bearings amongst Canadian cities is inconsistent, inasmuch as because the arms of many Canadian cities...
 Done (though I deplore the dumbing down of perfectly accurate and readable English) → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern heraldry/Personal:

 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the best I could think of. The ribbon itself is not really described in the passage, failing NFCC--it was too decorative. Have you got a better idea? I'm out of them, alas. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a link to Arms of Canada#Symbolism, or even directly to the Ribbon part of it (using {{anchors}}), would be more appropriate? Jafeluv (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done} → ROUX ₪ 08:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following are entitled to supporters in their arms – Wikilink should point to Supporters (heraldry). Who knows when the main page is redirected elsewhere.
 Done doh! I thought it did! → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Canadian elements and practices/Cadency:

  • Canada is unique in having a series of cadences for use by female children who inherit arms. – Needs a citation.
See the reference at the end of the next sentence [1]. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source says: "The marks for male cadets are the same as those used in England. Those for female cadets are unique to Canada." I read that as "the marks for female cadets used in Canada are not used elsewhere", not "nowhere in the world except in Canada do they use any marks for female cadets". The latter is what the article says. Jafeluv (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh.. that must have been my misreading based on knowing the fact, I'll have to find a source for it. No other heraldic tradition codifies cadency for women because Canada's is the only one in which women inherit equally with men. In all other traditions, arms are inherited (where they are inherited) on a patrilineal basis, and daughters use the arms of their fathers marshalled with their husbands. Hrm. This will take some digging. → ROUX ₪ 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Canadian elements and practices/Status of women:

  • a woman does not inherit or transmit arms unless she is an heraldic heiress – Are you sure it's "an heraldic", not "a heraldic"?
Either is accurate, and I favour 'an' (an heraldic, an historic) as more elegant. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Canadian elements and practices/United Empire Loyalists:

  • Replace "L" and "R" with "left" and "right" in the image caption.
 Done → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

I don't see it as a problem, to be honest. While we shouldn't write in needlessly opaque terms, this is an encyclopdia and we shouldn't be dumbing down language. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it the other day, feeling it is too decorative. See above. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the article is well written and informative. More information is needed especially in the history section, which is awfully short for a topic with such a long history. The lead could also be expanded. More images would be nice, for example the arms of some of the provinces and territories that are discussed in the article could give the reader a better understanding of what is being described. So to summarize, check that the article meets the criteria 1b, 2a and 3 before taking this to FA. Good luck with the article. Jafeluv (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously too image-heavy, particularly with fair-use images. I'll see what I can do. As for the long history, there isn't one really. Prior to 1988, all Canadian heraldry was handled through the College of Arms in the UK. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Canadian_heraldry/archive2&oldid=302390866"