Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian heraldry/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010.

Canadian heraldry

 * Nominator(s): → ROUX  ₪  05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this article is as good as it is going to get. It's clear, concise, well-referenced, and adequately illustrated with images. I like to think the writing is fairly decent, too. → ROUX   ₪  05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links, one dead external link, will likely offer further comments today or tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What version are you looking at? I removed that link yesterday. That article, written by the former Chief Herald of Canada, is no longer available online; the referencing information included is more than enough to find it. Oh, wait.. for some reason I'd used the same full ref twice instead of just using the refname. Doh. Fixed. This being my first trial by fire time through FAC, is no dablinks good or bad? →  ROUX   ₪  13:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No dablinks is good, and I got that link from the "external links" tool in the toolbox on the right of this screen - running that and the dablinks tool is standard practice early in an FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah.. I apparently muffed something when I was first writing this, defined a named ref twice. I removed the first definition yesterday, but obviously the other was still there. → ROUX   ₪  13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:
 * Refs 11, 24 and 52 lack publisher details
 * Refs 53, 54, 56 and 57 give website names rather than publisher details
 * refs 23, 24 and 25 have inconsistent retrieval date format.

Otherwise, all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been trying to fix them, and going crosseyed in the process. I've just gotten home from a very long day of cooking, so I'll get to this stuff tomorrow. → ROUX   ₪  02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed all except 52. The publication information is sort of listed in the ref; I am unable to find further publication information other than the website itself (heraldsnet.org) and the name of the uploader (saitou). Should I include those? → ROUX   ₪  11:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The book the website claims to represent is online here . I think it might be better to use this rather than the website - get the info straight from the source.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How terribly helpful. Ta! → ROUX   ₪  18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comments
 * 1) Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
 * 2) Don't link things in See also that are already linked in the article text
 * 3) How does one determine which version of the coronet a Loyalist might have? Should spell it out, though it's somewhat implied
 * 4) Why are pale and fess bolded?
 * 5) "from aboriginal and First Nations people" - "peoples", and why do you specify First Nations when that group is covered by "aboriginal"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else to add to the lead; my understanding is that it should be a summary of the article. What have I left out that should be included? I have expanded the lead somewhat; do you think it is sufficient?
 * Doh.
 * Fixed
 * I had bolded them in order to link the words together; it made sense at the time. unbolded.
 * There is some uncertainty in Canada about the correct term to use for the indigenous population. See First_Nations and Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada for more info. It's kind of a mess to be honest, and refs could be found supporting any or all of First Nations, Native, Indian, Aboriginal, Indigenous, etc. I used the terminology that is most inclusive and most widely used within Canada. (For example, in general terms First Nations is used in the media for aboriginal peoples who are not Inuit; the latter tends to be referred to specifically by that name). → ROUX   ₪  11:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments from / ƒETCH COMMS  / 
 * 1) "In addition, similar to those of Nunavut, First Nations arms may be set on a roundel rather than a traditional European escutcheon." is there a ref for this?
 * 2) The list under the "Personal" section—are the two refs by "Most corporate bodies" for the whole list or just "Most corporate bodies"?
 * 3) Some of the sections feel rather brief ("Divisions of the field") and surely there is more information known about the history of Canadian heraldry?
 * I could have sworn I had one, but I can't find it. I have removed the statement; in reality arms may be displayed on any shape of shield that the artist decides. The heater style common in English heraldry is merely the most common.
 * The refs are for the whole section. I felt that including them on each line would be overly redundant. I have moved the ref to make things more clear, I hope.
 * The Divisions section is necessarily short; I wanted to stick to elements that are both unique and widely used. I have retitled the section to Charges, ordinaries, and divisions of the field and am now populating it. As for history, that is all I can find that is not otherwise adequately covered either in other sections (e.g. Official) or in other articles (e.g. Arms of Canada). → ROUX   ₪  23:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Adding: I have slightly expanded the history section to mention some notable COAs. Working on the other one. →  ROUX   ₪  13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More
 * In the table of brisures, "a fir twig" is the only one that has "a" in front of the object. Is this on purpose?
 * Ref 58 with The Canadian Encyclopedia, I think The Canadian Encyclopedia (which needs to be italicized there) is the work and "Historica-Dominion" is the publisher.
 * The changes you made before seem good to me. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If by 'on purpose' you mean 'was an utter brainfart,' yes. Fixed.
 * Ditto; this states the publisher as Historica Foundation. → ROUX   ₪  02:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Of notable exception is the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia, awarded in 1625 by Charles I (making it the oldest coat of arms in the Commonwealth outside of the United Kingdom ), in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement."
 * Comment: This caught my eye. Sometimes when a statement ends in closing bracket ")" the ref appears before it. Shouldn't it be after? Either directly after the bracket, or after the comma or period after the bracket? Here's one example:

Further on in the article there's this, this way just 'looks better' to me at least (either way the article should be consistent, one way or the other): "To differentiate identical arms, a system known as cadency was developed, possibly by John Writhe in 1500 (though other sources argue that systems of cadency were in use at least two centuries prior), which adds a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms."

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly inconsistency, sorry. I personally prefer to keep the ref inside the parentheses to indicate that it only supports that statement; outside the parentheses could imply that the ref supports the entire preceding sentence. → ROUX   ₪  11:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may need an expert image reviewer to check the copyright status of File:Canada-Arms.jpg. As a two-dimensional work of art I don't think it is covered by freedom of panorama, so the copyright presumably rests with the artist not with the photographer. File:HBC-coa.JPG may have similar issues, but I presume that is an old work of art rather than a modern one?
 * Comments from DrKiernanResolved. Support below. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On the text:
 * 1) Does "mark of authority" as in royal insignia as a mark of authority have a specific meaning, and is this phrase actually used by the sources? If not, I'd be inclined to drop "as a mark of authority" and leave it as incorporating royal insignia in the lead, followed by are used by in the Canadian heraldry section.
 * 2) It seems incredible that the Nova Scotian arms should be overlooked and then rediscovered. If this is not certain, then I would change The original was rediscovered in 1929, and replaced the 1868 version. with The original replaced the 1868 version in 1929.
 * 3) I don't think use of then-Secretary of State or then-Governor General is necessary. You could just cut the then.
 * 4) There's "authorized" with a z but "organise" with an s. I would select either one or the other throughout the article so that ize/ise endings are consistently applied.
 * 5) In the Canadian heraldry section, there is an mdash—to break a sentence, but in the following sentence spaced ndashes – are used. Try to stick to one or the other throughout the article, rather than mixing styles.
 * 6) Should each province and territory possesses its own unique arms; Saskatchewan's ... read each province and territory possesses its own unique arms; for example, Saskatchewan's ...? If not, I'd be inclined to drop the Saskatchewan sentence since it looks out of place there.
 * 7) As mentioned above, symbols and elements from aboriginal and First Nations people does look odd. How about aboriginal and First Nations symbols and elements?
 * 8) I think though other sources argue that systems of cadency were in use at least two centuries prior which adds a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms is easier to understand as though other sources argue that systems of cadency that add a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms were in use at least two centuries prior.
 * 9) Is the source really arguing that cadency arose at least two centuries prior? Certainly, it argues for an origin by around 1350 or 1380, but not (by my reading) by 1300, although differencing was apparently used by then. I'd probably try a wording along the lines of: as much as two centuries before.
 * 10) I wonder whether the "Status of women" section should come before the "Cadency" section? I only mention this because I'm intrigued to know why Canada has a unique system of cadency marks for women, and I presume (out of ignorance) that this is because they can bear arms on equal terms with men? If not, perhaps it could be explained how these unique marks arose?

An interesting article that I enjoyed reading. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've numbered your bullets for clarity in responding:
 * Inasmuch as all authority in Canada is ultimately derived from the Sovereign, usage of the Arms is a reference to that authority. A Crown of Maples uses the word 'sovereignty'; Department of Heritage says they 'signify national sovereignty or ownership', and the RHSC indicates that national arms denote royal authority. I felt that the simple term 'mark of authority' covered all these bases without going into a long digression about Canadian legal theory and history.
 * Overlooked and rediscovered is exactly what happened. The Royal Warrant in 1868 awarded arms for the four provinces of Confederation (ON, QC, NS, NB) without regard for arms in use at the time. In 1929 the original was rediscovered (precisely how is unclear), and reinstated.
 * I prefer the use of then- to distinguish from current officeholders; I find it to be more clear.
 * One of the problems of growing up in Canada is our tendency to absorb both the Queen's English and the American... version. Our spelling is therefore often inconsistent; I've aligned the spelling to be consistent.
 * Fixed for consistency.
 * I hesitate to use 'for example' when I am unable to find sources indicating the official names of arms in provinces other than SK. There was something of a brouhaha about similar titling, involving an aggressive monarchist (you know who, I believe), so I included that as a sop to prevent him from showing up at this article to cause more disruption.
 * Hmm, yes. Fixed.
 * Hahhaa, that was an editing error on my part. I got tangled up in where refs ended (we really need a much better method of dealing with that).
 * Your wording is more elegant.
 * The status of women comes where it does because I felt the most neutral presentation of subheadings in that section would be alphabetical (as opposed to the Modern Heraldry section, in which case the progression from largest jurisdiction--the CHA--to smallest--personal--made the most sense).
 * I think I've addressed everything you mentioned. Glad you enjoyed the article! → ROUX   ₪  16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On 6, I suspected as much. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'd rather avoid further entanglement there; I suspect you understand. As to point 1, it seems pretty obvious to me from the sources; do you have a suggestion that would better address your concern? Point 2 is about as clear as it can be; it is factually correct and supported by the sources. Point 3 is a stylistic thing, I think, and unless there's serious objection I'm probably not going to change it. → ROUX   ₪  22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about 1 or 3; they won't effect whether I support, but I'll leave them unstruck so others can follow the debate. On 2, I've been reading up on it at . I don't think the wording of that sentence is quite right at the moment, would you accept The original was later rediscovered, and replaced the 1868 version in 1929? DrKiernan (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth did I forget about that source? What a twit I am. Thanks; it has also neatly addressed your point 1. → ROUX   ₪  23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose File:HBC-coa.JPG & File:Canada-Arms.jpg, are both claimed as "own work" but appear to be derived work of existing artwork Fasach Nua (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, wouldn't it be a bit more collaborative to inform me of this and let me know how to fix it, rather than blanket opposing for it? I had thought that photographs counted as 'own work,' which is how both images are licenced on Commons. I had made the assumption that images available on Commons, particularly images that have been around for a while, are free to use and have been checked for licencing problems. Could you explain what the problem is and how to fix it? → ROUX   ₪  21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I create a two-dimensional work of art, then I own the rights to reproduce that work of art in photographic form. If I paint a picture and then someone else takes a photograph and distributes it, the photographer has infringed my rights over the picture. For these images to be free use, then the copyright of the original work of art must have expired or be inapplicable. As one was created in 1994 or after, it is very unlikely to be public domain; the other is more likely to be public domain since the arms have been around for centuries but there's no proof of when this particular artwork was first put up. If it was put up recently, it could conceivably still be copyrighted. Unfortunately, wikicommons volunteers do not always get things right. It seems in these cases as though the uploader did not know that they required the permission of the original copyright holder, or that the work they were photographing could be a copyrighted one. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I had assumed Commons images were fine. Will a local FUR deal with the issue? The HBC logo isn't essential, but the newest version of the Canadian arms is, I think. (In which case I'll just use a FUR on the graphic depiction, as it's coloured). → ROUX   ₪  22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, see if Fasach will accept a fair use rationale for the full color version. Maybe you could replace the HBC logo with File:Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia.svg? DrKiernan (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced the HBC. Will await Fasach's commentary on the other. → ROUX   ₪  22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead image file has been deleted, so I've replaced it with the free file File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg. Providing you're happy to keep that image, the only thing which concerns me now is that "Coat of Arms" and "coat of arms" seem to be used interchangeably in the article. Should it be capitalized? DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a FUR for the entire achievement; using only the escutcheon doesn't really illustrate much, as it has been unchanged since 1957, and the only change from 1921 was depicting the maple leaves gules instead of vert. Regarding the case, I have used (and just fixed inconsistencies) lowercase when dealing with the general concept, and uppercase when dealing with specific achievements. → ROUX   ₪  12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you pinged Fasach Nua to revisit the Oppose? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of the files on which Fasach Nua and I raised concerns are in the article now. DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article now uses only one non-free image File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg, comparing it side by side with the free File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg, I can't see a lot of difference, and WP:NFCC requires that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I don't believe the non-free image contains enough new information to justify itself. Regrettably the oppose remains, all be it now for a different reason than had originally been given. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at the images again. The differences are important, most notably the addition of the ribbon of the Order of Canada surrounding the escutcheon. I am afraid, without sounding like a dick, that you don't know enough about the subject matter to realize how important the differences are. Further, the 1994 version is the official depiction; we use current corporate logos in articles about companies. The COA can in very real terms be considered Canada's logo. → ROUX   ₪  14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The ribbon is plain text, and can easily be described with ... plain text. On the second issue there is no blanket allowance to use corporate logos, and these are judged on a case by case basis against wp:nfcc, which this image fails. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that it cannot easily be described with plain text. Whatever; your very first comment here indicated you were more interested in simply opposing over incredibly nitpicky details rather than actually making helpful suggestions and working collaboratively. As such, I'm simply going to disregard your opinion.→ ROUX   ₪  14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all the issues outlined above. How do we move towards determining support/oppose for promotion to FA? → ROUX   ₪  12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question re next steps

Support. Just one more incredibly minor point: The article uses Template:Mdash, which inserts spaces before and after the mdash, but the Manual of Style says mdashes should be unspaced. This is clearly a conflict between the template and the MoS. Perhaps just use plain code for this rather than the template? I don't especially mind personally, but you're bound to have someone complain. On the one fair-use image in the article, I've bolstered the fair use rationale to explain that this particular image is especially pertinent to the topic matter because it is an example which fuses traditional French and British motifs with specifically Canadian symbols, and it is the only Arms of Canada designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority. Perhaps you should ping Fasach and ask him to revisit? DrKiernan (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed; pinged. → ROUX   ₪  22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as I think the image issue has been largely resolved as has the other comments above. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't done a detaield study of this but this paragraph immediately catches my eye:


 * In much the same way that there is a national coat of arms, each province and territory possesses its own unique arms;[38] Saskatchewan's is known formally as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Saskatchewan.[39]  The year after Confederation, Queen Victoria issued Royal Warrants assigning arms to Canada's original four provinces: Québec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.[3]

That "Saskatchewan's is known formally as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Saskatchewan" seems like an afterthought forced in wherever it will fit. OK, so accounts for Saskatchewan. What about the others? Why are they not considered? Nothing in the surrounding text indicates it is to be considered purely as an example, or that it is somehow unique in having a formal title. As such it seems distractingly out of palce - either cut that or account for the others. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed this, in the section by DrKiernan above. → ROUX   ₪  23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does indeed seem like an odd afterthought insertion in this context. I don't know why I'm being blamed for its presence. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing your name mentioned anywhere on this page. → ROUX   ₪  13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't mentioned specifically, but I can't think of anyone else you and DrKiernan would together label an "aggressive monarchist"; both of you have made your opinions of me clear before (not to imply that I necessarily agree with them). If there's someone else the two of you had in mind, I'll retract my second statement above and apologise. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sourcing, I don't see any indication that anyone has done a sourcing spotcheck, for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked refs 7,8, 18 and 21 and they looked in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will note for the record that I do not believe any of my writing violates any copyrights or plagiarizes any material. I suspect in some cases the paraphrasing may be close, but there are only so many ways to say the same thing without torturing the English language.→ ROUX   ₪  03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked verifiability; see my point 9 (now struck) and my follow-up to point 2  (also now addressed). DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  - I'll go through with straightforward prose tweaks (revert if I guff the meaning) and jot pending queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ...in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement - okay, I am a heraldry neophyte but I am stumped at what "achievement" means here....??


 * In June 2008, MP Pat Martin introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling on the government to amend the coat of arms to incorporate symbols representing Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples - umm, has it happened yet?
 * 'Achievement of arms' is another way of saying 'award of arms'; it refers to the entire shebang--escutcheon, and crests/supporters/motto/compartment (if any). Coat of arms can be used to refer only to the escutcheon. No, it hasn't happened. Martin was a minority MP at the time. It was one of those motions that says much while accomplishing little, in the full knowledge that it would accomplish little. Political grandstanding, but important for what it was requesting. → ROUX   ₪  03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured the second was something along those lines (i.e. had anything developed, it would have been added). okay, neither of those are deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Conditional support I'll support after these concerns have been addressed.
 * "In June 2008, MP Pat Martin introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling on the government to amend the coat of arms to incorporate symbols representing Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples." That was June 2008 (as it clearly states). What happened to the motion?
 * If you put two images next to each other, sometimes they create gaps below the smaller of the two. Is there a way you can fix this? (floating, maybe?)
 * "...(making it the oldest coat of arms in the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom[2]), in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement." Um, why was it replaced?
 * why is "heraldic heiress" italicized?
 * Parts of sections Personal and Obtaining arms are similar. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In order: see directly above, where I have already addressed this point. Nothing happened to the motion, as far as I can find out, it was political theatre. But important nonetheless. Not much I can do about the gaps while retaining a simple and visually pleasing layout (I categorically refuse to do the nonsensical L-R alternating images; it is poor graphic design, period, and makes articles less functionally readable for a wide variety of reasons, most important of which is that it breaks where our eyes return to after finishing the previous line). Why was the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia replaced? That is covered in both the article about the arms and in the references given. It seemed like unnecessary detail to go into, but short version: the record of the original grant was unavailable, and Victoria simply signed Letters Patent creating coats of arms for all the provinces involved in Confederation. Blank slate, as it were. Heraldic heiress was italicized to indicate that it is a specific term. The only part of the Personal and Obtaining sections that is similar is the opening sentence; 'parts' is inaccurate. → ROUX   ₪  14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @wikicopter, you may have missed Roux replying to me about the motion..looks like it just...umm...fizzled. It's a bummer sometimes when you are writing a Featured Article and you know something didn't happen but you can't cite something as not happening because you can't find a source which says it didn't happen. Meh. Part of the fun of writing really :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.