Jump to content

Talk:Canadians/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Please fix the disamb link to British Canadian. No broken links.[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Nice article, which is clearly the product of hard work

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    What does a "Canadian" ethic orgin mean?
    What do you mean? - In Canada its a cultural origin.Moxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article should explain how the census instructed those who self-identify as Canadian.
    "agnostics, atheists, humanists, and other irreligious groups."->"agnostics, atheists, humanists, and other groups."
     DoneMoxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    " the 49th Imam of the Ismaili Muslims" - could you please state his name?
     Done.Moxy (talk)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The lead says, "the overwhelming majority arrived in the 20th century." without a source, and the statement is not repeated in the body of the article. So it is left unsourced.
    It is mentioned again i believe in the right time frame "The population of Canada has consistently risen every year since the establishment of the Dominion in 1867, predominantly due to immigration.Canadians in Context — Population Size and Growth.Moxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    How does the scope of this article differ from Demographics of Canada?
    Why is the section Culture of Canada#Canadian identity in that article rather than in this article? At the least, should not this be included as a see also or cross reference. It is unclear to me as both a reviewer and as a reader what is the intended scope of this article.
     Done - much added about Canadian identity. As for what the article is for ..i guess its a Peoples overview article like all the ones mentioned above in the move talk of the main talk page (i did not make the article - just fixing it up as i saw that the view count was some what high).Moxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider outlining the broad terms the different waves of immigration: Tories after US revolutionary war, Irish during Potato Famine, European Refugees from WW I and II, Commonwealth immigrants after 1960s, US immigrants particularly during Viet Nam War, etc.
     Done - some mentioned in Overview section others in Culture section.Moxy (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How does "Inductees in Canada's Walk of Fame" relate to the topic and why is it included in the "See Also" section?
     Not done - Its a list of Famous "Canadians", but can be removed with no argument from me .Moxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "First Nations" is not used in the article, and First Nations is missing from the See Also section. Why?
     Done -
    Could/should the article summarize the contents of Aboriginal peoples in Canada be summarized in this article?
     Done all 3 are now mentioned - with time frame for Metis people creation.Moxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please address this concern about a possible omission from the Overview Section regarding block immigratiion?
     Done..Moxy (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As side from the languages of the First Nations, how prevalent is media in languages other than English or French? For example, in the United States, there is extensive Spanish, Japanese and Korean media.
     Done - very short with a few examples.Moxy (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We have some specialty channels - i will look into it.Moxy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Censusdivisions-ethnic.png - was it really drawn by Earl Andrew? It is very professional looking.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold.Racepacket (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review - I am not the one that requested it (nor do i think its close to GA status as mentioned above).  DoneI will over some time address the issues raised above, but not sure how fast this will be done as i have to read-up on the topic more. Not sure if the person that nominated the page is willing to help - but any input would be welcome. -------Pls look at additions Moxy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 15 reading

[edit]

Thank you for all of your hard work. The article is much better. I have added relevant articles to the See Also section.

  • The lead says, "nearly all Canadians or their ancestors immigrated to Canada within the past five centuries, and the overwhelming majority arrived in the 20th century." Per WP:LEAD this fact must appear in the non-lead portion of the article. Please add it, and source it.
Ok i reword it a bit - it is ok - i am not sure what the problem is..would you simply like a ref that states the population of Canada has increased over the past 5 centuries?
  • The census reports "the largest self-reported ethnic origin is Canadian (32%)," which is confusing the reader. Could you take the census instructions and write something so that the reader will understand what it means when someone self-reports as Canadian. Obviously, 100% of the people are Canadian in some sense. The data says that most of the self-reported Canadians are in Quebec - does this mean that these are mostly Anglophones living in Quebec?
 Done - pls see note 3 - this is a hard one - but i found some info as to y People self identify as Canadian (as i do because i come from a very mixed ethic backgrounds - been here since the 1700s).Moxy (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 is helpful. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact the nominator again. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I nominated the article for GA as I believe it to be informative, well written and comprehensively well sourced. Some concerns have been addressed well, and I will see what else I can do myself. Sir Richardson (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that you can use the lead to give the reader a "heads-up" on the intended scope of the article? Consider adding a hatnote. I've read the article four times now and I am still confused as to what it is trying to cover vis a vis the main Canada article and the Demographics article? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some help with the lead would be nice...As to what the article does is it summary of all the articles that mentioned/covering the People of Canada them selves (consolidating all the articles that are about the People of Canada) The Canada articles deals with "Canada the country" in general - The Demographics simply shows numbers and represents juts current patterns. As proven with references in this article "Canadians" is a common term referring to the people of Canada and is an ethnic group as defined by the Government and over 10 million people. The article is the norm in its presentation as per People of the United States, Russians Australians and so on - i am just following the precedent set forth hope nothing is wrong. I see others describe this People articles as a jumping of article. PS mostg of the link added to See also are linked in the chart...should we make that more viable to our readers?Moxy (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The chart linkings are confusing. In the chart "Regions with significant populations" the links go to the article of each nation. But in the chart "Ethnic Origin" the links go to the article about the Canadian ethnic group. I did not see that because I stopped checking after the first few links of the first chart. If what the links represent is flagged in a footer of each table (or in the header if you prefer), we can delete the extra "See also" links. Racepacket (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My current thought is that if we can improve the lead, I will consider passing it. But if we can't get a clear lead, I will fail it because it is impossible to render a valid opinion on the breath and focus of an article if I can't tell what the article's scope is. Racepacket (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the links in the chart clear - Ok any more thoughts on the lead- what is missing still missing? - So far we now mention - population - immigration - culture - identity - multilateralism - socioeconomic development - citizenship - nationality law - language - religion. Moxy (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:Sir Richardson has ideas. One improvement might be to expand the hat note to a template that says "This article covers the cultural and demographic identity of the People of Canada, for other uses see Canadian (dis...." or something similar. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Moxy (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 17 reading

[edit]
  • In lead, "Canadians represented by government legislation, have been committed to multilateralism and socioeconomic development domestically since the mid 20th century." - sentence needs improvement. Perhaps the legislation represents Canadians' commitment to....
 Done
  • "Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters." perhaps should be "Vietnam War draft dissenters"?
 Done
  • Do we know the source countries of illegal immigration?
 Done..and moved up sections
  • It might be valuable to include a chart or graph of total immigration by decade or by half-century, if you can find one.
 Done Its been added rooms been madeWe have one File:Canada immigration graph.png and i would love to add it "But" as per Wp:images we should not sandwich text between pics and/or boxes (something that can be seen in main article anyways)
  • Do we have a pie graph on the breakdown of the home language of the population (e.g., 67.1% English, 21.5% French, x% Cree, z% Nunavut, etc.)? Currently, you give numerical values for some, percentages for others, and nothing for the rest, which is fine in the text, but makes comparison difficult to grasp. I know that everything else is about 11%.
 Done Dont have a graph for this - I have redid {fixed} the section so that its more flued and added the other %'s - I have added some numbers for the aboriginal with a new statement and link to a chart as aboriginal language. - As for numbers for the individual groups mentioned in the second section now - its talking about just specific areas not the country as a whole so numbers would be misleading, but think the new layout and info explains all much better now, Moxy (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has made great progress since the start of the review. Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the suggestions they help expand the article alot and were well needed.Moxy (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadians/GA1&oldid=409108252"