Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal coat of arms of Canada/archive1

Royal coat of arms of Canada

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. 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)
 * Just as a note, someone else will have to implement any suggestions you make. I have had to leave the article due to involvement by a tendentious editor who causes me an enormous amount of stress. → ROUX   ₪  18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that. It's always a shame to see good contributors driven away from articles that interest them due to unnecessary wikidrama. But I totally understand if you want to step out of it for a while. Wikipedia's something that people do on their free time, and it should be something you enjoy. It's just not worth all the stress, and taking an article to FAC the first time isn't exactly likely to lower the stress level. I do hope you come back and take this to FA after your break, but on the other hand I understand if you don't. I don't know you all that much, but from what I've seen I think you're a very valuable asset to the encyclopaedia. Jafeluv (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone still cares, some comments:

Lead:
 * also known as the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada[1][2] – What's the correct capitalisation? Source 2 has "royal coat of arms of Canada" and source 1 is in all caps.
 * ... the official coat of arms of the Canadian monarch and thus also of Canada.
 * ... with distinctive Canadian elements replacing or added to those derived from the British – "With + -ing" is ungrammatical. I suggest "... and has distinctive Canadian elements replacing or added to..."

History:
 * References [5], [8] and [9] are broken.
 * arms were granted by Royal Warrant on 6 May to Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia (whose arms were changed in 1929) and New Brunswick. Nova Scotia's arms were changed in 1929. – I think it flows better without the brackets. Just a suggestion.
 * Nine quarterings on a shield is too complex for a national symbol – This is presented as a fact, although the source says "a shield made of nine quarterings was impossibly complex as a national symbol", and most likely means "... was considered impossibly complex as a national symbol". I'd suggest a slight rewording. Just remember that the people at FAC love questions like "considered by whom?"
 * the new arms of Canada were eventually formally requested by an Order-in-Council on 30 April 1921, and adopted in November of the same year by proclamation of King George V as the "Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada," on 21 November. – No need to specify the date twice.
 * the arms were redrawn by Alan Beddoe so as to have red leaves...
 * The new layout closely reflected the arms of the United Kingdom,[14] with the addition of maple leaves in the base, and the  a reference to the French royal arms in the fourth quarter.
 * Wikilink Tudor dynasty and St. Edward's Crown.
 * ... which had added to it an annulus behind the shield with the motto... → "which had an annulus added to it behind the shield with the motto..."

Motto:
 * See also should be used at the beginning of sections, not in the end.

Supporters:
 * Supporting should point to supporters (heraldry).

Compartment:
 * The Tudor rose is the floral badge of England (and Wales) – I don't think the brackets are needed here.

Hope this helps, Jafeluv (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)