Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian Heraldic Authority/archive1

Canadian Heraldic Authority

I'm nominating this article (which I started) because I think that it's pretty well written (it's been peer reviewed), and it deals with a topic (Heraldry & heraldic institutions) that many people are not familiar with. --Mb1000 19:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a very good start - well done - but the article is rather sparse: there must be more to say about it. What has it done since it was created in 1988? Who are the Heralds? (no Kings of Arms or Pursuivants?) Does it have premises? Does it have any staff, other than the heralds? What is its budget? Are there fees to pay? In what ways is it the same as, or different from, other heraldic bodies, such as the College of Arms or the Court of Lord Lyon. In any event, the article will need some references. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*In response to your concerns: I did not feel it nessessary to include details about particular grants of arms granted since 1988. It can be easily understood that since 1988 the Canadian Heraldic Authority has been granting armorial bearings to Canadians, thus fulfilling it's purpose. The article does mention the main heralds of the Authority (e.g. The Saint-Laurent Herald, The Fraser Herald). Also mentioned is the fact that the Authority is the Canadian counterpart of the Collage of Arms, and the Court of the Lord Lyon.

The article deals with the fact that the grant process is, "financed by the "petitioner", that is the person requesting the grant or registration of arms, who pays the fees associated with the request and grant/registration." As fees differ from grant to grant I did not feel that it would be wise to estimate in this article. --Mb1000 20:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - Thanks for the response: I was really asking for more details, not information about individual grants. Are statistics available - for example, how many grants has it made? Have any grants been controversial or notable in any way (famous grantees; interesting achievements)? What are the names of the Heralds (rather than just their titles)? I know there are references to the College of Arms and Court of Lord Lyon, but they are quite different in scope and procedure: how does this authority operate? Is there no estimate of the fees involved (e.g. application fee, hourly rate?)? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The image Image:Coat of arms of the CHA.jpg has no copyright information. If it was drawn by the uploader, it is under whatever license the uploader wants; otherwise, it is probably copyrighted and falls under "fair use", in which case it should be tagged as {{coatofarms}}, and needs to indicate the image source. --Carnildo 21:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object- not comprehensive or detailed. For example, several sections are merely bullet-point lists, with little or no description. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, due to the expansion of the article, support. Great work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- In response to the concerns of Carnildo The image in question (Image:Coat of arms of the CHA.jpg) has been tagged as {{coatofarms}}, and information has been added about it's source. --Mb1000 23:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. --Carnildo 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, I agree totally with the point raised by ALoan and Flcelloguy. This article needs to be significantly fleshed out.--nixie 06:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the current version, out of curiosity how long was this on peer review?--nixie 05:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't even remember! And I'd Like to thank you for supporting the article's nomination!--Mb1000 13:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you suggestions. I have just added significant amounts of information to the article, including information regarding fees and processing time. I found it to be unnessesary to add the names of individual heralds, as little or no information is available online regarding them. I did some reserch but could not find any particularly famous grantees. I hope my new additions will make you reconsider your objections. Thank-you. --Mb1000 17:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you have gone a some way towards addressing my objections. However, sections 2 and 3 are still very skeletal - if there is no further information to add, perhaps they should be merged into another section (for example, section 2 would work reasonably well as a second paragraph in the lead). I still think there is more to say - I am not very surprised that there is little information available online: what about offline sources? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made quite a few changes, so take a look! Merged what was section 2 (Purpose) into the lead section (Section 0 as I call it), reworded extensivly, and generally moved text around for better flow. Unfortunatly, there is less information offline then there is online! --Mb1000 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a bunch of things into the article, and I wish to see if some of yall's objections have been met. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - an excellent response. I think the new additions need a light copyedit, but I will support now. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A spell check has be completed, but I think this article should be in British English, IMHO. I will also support this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I eventually noticed there was no actual categories to put it in, so I created one. Circeus 22:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)