Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Order of Canada
Order of Canada edit
I, along with two other users, have fixed up the article. We have added links, references, images (some drawn by me, again, like at Hero of Belarus). And with the possible removal of a person from the Order and a recent investure, people will be looking at the article to see what the Order is about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If I may also sound in, Canada Day is just around the Corner on July 1st. This is the day that new members are announced Dowew 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very well written. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very nicely done, images are well documented, and the article reads very well. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I like the way this article is organized. Phoenix2 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Object, sadly. I agree with the above, but I think the article is not quite sufficiently referenced. There are no references except for the (rather poorly formatted footnotes) which means a lot of the information in the article does not have information on its source; I also suspect some of the "External links" were used as sources. Examples of information for which I could not readily find the source in the links provided are the numbers of living Officers and Companions, and the description of the backside of the medals. I admit I haven't searched through the sourches exhaustively, but other readers in need of this information might show even less patience. I apologize if I come across as being overly picky about references, but recent conversations with people I know have given me the certainty that lack of verifiability and through referencing is Wikipedia's greatest flaw, next to vandalism. Phils 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Support. Congratulations to Zscout370, and thanks for adressing my concerns. Excellent work. Phils 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, there is no need to apologize. I will take care of the references. As for the reverse of the medal, there were pictures I have seen online, but no law to back it up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As for the number of living C.C. and O.C., this is what me and others did. We went to http://www.gg.ca/Search/honours_e.asp?Search=2 and filled out sections needed. We checked off the grade, then living, then search. We cannot save each search, since there is no special website that displays each search, unless you wish for us to link to the above site and call it a reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I will support of the references are dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Support - I couldn't help copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's alright, it looks very good now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I couldn't help copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support,
noting Phils' comments. I have little doubt that Zscout370 will address them to the best of his abilities, so I'll vote support now.172 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above comments by Phils have been responded to, and if there is anything that I missed, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake-- I read the article earlier, missing the recent changes. Excellent work. 172 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake-- I read the article earlier, missing the recent changes. Excellent work. 172 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support A well written article and one of Wikipedia's best. --Omni gamer 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. As I pointed out during PR, it is very very short. Without pics, lists and section headings, all content would fit on a single screen. Since everybody seems to agree it's comprehensive as it is, I won't object, but I have this feeling it can and should be expanded somehow. I won't object based on my 'feeling', though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What sections, do you feel, should be expanded the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think the only thing that can be added now is basic trivia regarding the Order. I just added info about Diefenbaker being the only Prime Minister not entered into the Order, however there is only so much of that you can add in before it just gets ridiculous. Dowew 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If he is talking about citations for the various appointees, that is more appropriate on each article of the various appointees. If there are historical designs of the medal, we should show them. But I have yet to find older designs of the medals. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think the only thing that can be added now is basic trivia regarding the Order. I just added info about Diefenbaker being the only Prime Minister not entered into the Order, however there is only so much of that you can add in before it just gets ridiculous. Dowew 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What sections, do you feel, should be expanded the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support--Scimitar 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. It is certainly informative and serves its purpose well. Ben Babcock 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Seems short for a FA, but I don't see anything that could be added.say1988 16:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
As of 18:09, 26 June 2006, the article was promoted. Thanks to everyone that has come here and voted. <Cheesy>I dedicate this one to my Ontario girlfriend.</Cheesy> Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)