Talk:Flag of Canada/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Hello Zscout370, would you like to discussion the Maple Leaf Flag?

Howdy Zscout370, :)

Would you like to talk about my contributions to the Canadian Maple Leaf page? Thank you for your kind consideration.

Take care, :) ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was a bit confused on why you brought up the US, French and Irish flags into the article, so that was the basis of my first and only revert on this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Don, I first need to suggest to remove the flags that are unrelated to the article, mainly the French and the Irish flags. Unless they have something to do with the creation of the Canadian flag, I suggest they should be removed. Other than that, I do not know what else for right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Zscout370, :)

Ok, if you want them removed, sure no problem. May I ask though if a separate page on the form the Maple Leaf Flag could be created and linked to the original page?

What do you think of that idea eh? ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice to Zscout370 about SimonP's and GroundZero's Arbitary Deletion

Howdy Zscout370,

This is just to let you know that I enjoyed our conversation very much about my contribution to the Flag of Canada page. You very very professional, easy going and nice to talk too. However, SimonP and GroundZero have seen fit to arbitarily deem my additions as "POV warranting Deletion" without any discussion. I am not happy about such "blatant editoral presumption" on their parts. I have have no prior dealings with GroundZero, but I am "well acquainted" with SimonP's style. He loves to add material without references and that retort that they are available in comtemptary Newpaper Articles. A claim that is quite difficult to double check, as most people are not career librarians, or such.

At any rate for the time being, I have taken the liberity to move my Republican Tricolour contributions to a separate page, linked below,

See also French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag.

Just to let yaa know, any blatant deletion/editing of this new page or the link to it on the Flag of Canada page, and I shall be asking you to contact the Administrations TO LOCK BOTH PAGES for Dispute Resolution.

Take care, and best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the above link from the article, because the French tricolor was not a factor in the creation of the Canadian national flag. I own a book about this subject called "I Stand For Canada." The only flag that this book even thought up could hamper this flag the flag of Peru. The remark, made in page 100 of the book, Colonel Duguid said "Has Peru got a new colony?" Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Zscout370,

A man after my own heart eh, I own that book as well. The book "I stand for Canada" is an invaluable book indeed. The book is a very thorough, detailed chronology of the development of the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag. In my opinion, its the least bias book that comes the cloest to telling the whole story.

However, the book does not tell the whole story. Would you please consider leaving the link to my French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag page, on the present Flag of Canada page?

I promise to make no more additions to this Flag of Canada page, whilst we can come to a consensus on my page French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag. Does this sound reasonable to you, Zscout370?

Thanks again, for your kind consideration of this matter. ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to jump in here with a mention of another extremely valuable source of information on the flag: John Matheson's book, Canada's Flag: A Search for a Country is an excellent insight into how the flag was developed and the behind-the-scenes working of the Flag committee. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to start a section on references and futher reading. My main goal is to get this article Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to try ans fix this article first, then I could look at the article. However, I just think the article you created could fall under WP:NOR. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As an ordinary user, I am not able to delete a page. If it is to be deleted, and I think it should be unless you provide sources for this stuff, it would have to go through the Votes for Deletion process. It looks now like you just made it up yourself. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. If you are able to provide sources, then please do so. It would both improve the article and avoid future edit wars. Regards, Ground Zero 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist History

Is it possible that this article is substantially wrong about who designed the flag? [1] which is a Canadian government site, has an alternate history. Then there is [2]. Tim Bray 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The maple leaf designer is mentioned in a book I own about the Canadian flag. I will look at the other links later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello folkes. Here is a link to the the memo of the so-called "Father-on-the-Flag", Dr. G.F.G. Stanley,

http://people.stfx.ca/lstanley/stanley/flagmemo2.htm

As per the truth (i.e., real story) behind the origin of the design of the present flag ... well I'm not getting into "that-one" again!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what the website is trying to get at is that Stanley presented the idea of the Canadian flag, while the persons mentioned in the first link refined it. I do remember the story about Mr. Jacques St-Cyr designing the maple leaf design. [3] seems to match what the above websites say. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Stanley conceived the overall design of the flag: red-white-red with a single red maple leaf. Matheson widened the white section to be half the flag's area. St-Cyr designed the 11-point abstract maple leaf. Indefatigable 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag on backpacks

Can somthing be said about how (allegedly) Canadians traveling in Europe sew the their flag or the maple leaf on their backpack to distinguish them as Canadian and not American? --Jonny 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello:

Yep, it's true. Any Canadian student going abroad has a Candian flag stitched to the backpack for this reason. In fact, many back packs are sold in the country with the aforementioned patch already sewn on. However, arsehole Americans can be seen everywhere with Canadian flags sewn on their backpacks, hats, shirts, jackets and pockets, with their passports tucked inside plastic protective sleeves with maple leaves on them so they can act like complete pricks and blame it it us like the shitheads they are. I don't think it belongs in the article, mind. I don't touch alcohol myself, but if I did, when abroad, I'd pick one night where I'd be in a bar with a big stars and stripes on my hat, waving the American flag and shouting USA! USA! USA to piss everyone off as I got loaded.

You're a jackass.


Format of flag

Is there a good reason why this doesn't have the format of the Dannebrog, Tricolore, Union Jack? If a page is just about a flag, shouldn't it be as big as possible? --Henrygb 03:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather use a standard hoist size (of 125 px) so the various flags can be readily compared. The Image:Flag of Canada link is there to provide the full size image.

Urhixidur 13:39, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

weblink

I added a link to my article, it is very informational and released under CreativeCommons. Discuss here about it if you have to say anything. NSK 12:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State funeral of Winston Churchill

I had to put note of the passing and state funeral of Winston Churchill because Prime Minister Lester Pearson attended the funeral. The queen approved the new flag when Pearson was in London to attend the funeral. SNIyer12, 18:04 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you inserted the reference the Churchill funeral, then took it out, arguing that it was not necessary. More recently, you've reinserted it. I didn't see the relevance of the original reference to the Churchill funeral and approved of your decision to remove it. Now I'm puzzled about your choice to put it back in. HistoryBA 03:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Duality Flag

Before I put up an request for the article, do you think this flag (was The Renewed Canadian Flag) is very notable in Canada and should get an article in here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt many would remember seeing it and even less knowing what it is. It is still more of a one man project then anything. --Marc pasquin 22:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Marc (hey! are you from FOTW by any chance?) I even have lost contact with Hank himself and I think he was the one who was complaining to the FOTW mailing list about an issue. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am *that* Marc Pasquin. His problem though was in regard to his proposal for a quebec provincial flag.--Marc pasquin 17:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I never seen that before. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Funerals and royal proclamations

Sir W. C.'s funeral was not Pearson's only opportuninty to meet with the Queen: he could have arranged a meeting regardless of the circumstances. In fact, he didn't even have to meet with the Queen to arrange the royal proclamation; it could have all been done by correspondence. This is the way the royal procalamtion of Canadian royal arms was done in 1921; the flag situation was analogous. The funeral merely gave a convenient opportunity for the Queen to sign the proclamation with Pearson in the same room. A nice touch, but not a requirement. Indefatigable 16:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the news accounts between the time the flag was adopted and the time Churchill passed away. None of them have any indication about Pearson arranging a meeting with the queen to have the new flag approved. Indefatigable, I agree with what you said about the opportunity the funeral gave. I've seen the tapes of Pierre Trudeau signing the repatriated Constitution in 1982. When he did, the queen was present so that she could sign it also. A meeting had been arranged with the the Queen so that they both could sign it at the same time. The same thing applied here. SNIyer12 21:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
And yet Trudeau managed to meet with the Queen without having to attend a funeral. As I understand it, this is Indefatgable's point. The PM can meet with the Queen when he/she wants. A funeral is not necessary. HistoryBA 22:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Centennial flag

there is also the official canadian centennial flag of 1967 http://www.hampshireflag.co.uk/world-flags/allflags/ca_100.html

There are many other flags in Canada. This article is about the national flag. Ground Zero | t 13:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

National Flag of Canada

Hello! The Canadian flag is officially called the National Flag of Canada and is referred to in the article upfront as such. I realise why the article is entitled Flag of Canada (for consistency), but there's no reason to dewikify or alter the lead and the diff between the two is next to none. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I dewikified the bolded article name because that's what the Style Guide says. I'll find a reference later. Style Guide says to move links later in the intro paragraphs. I'm okay restoring the lead to "The National Flag of Canada is...." if you want. I think you've provided a good reason. Ground Zero | t 19:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey there; thanks! Actually, the style guide has since been revised to account for exceptions: despite the prior directive, many titles are so wikified and – for lengthy or complex leads – I would actually encourage this practice to preclude possible tautologies or for clarity. In any event, thanks for your accommodation. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • So why are the links needed here in the article title when both "national flag" and "Canada" appear elsewhere in the intro paragraphs? It seems that the directive can be respected and the appropriate links made in the intro paras. Furthermore, you are the one who amended the Manual seemingly to reflect your own preference, and it does not seem to have been well-accepted, so I don't think you should be applying the "new rule" just yet. I strongly disagree, and do not think it is necessary. I'm sorry to sound a bit strong on this point, but I do feel strongly about it. I do not think that your edit was consistent with the spirit of the Manual, and have reverted it. Ground Zero | t 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I disagree. While this is a preference with some articles (and I'm not at all advocating for this across the board, only when needed), I amended the guide to reflect this reality in Wp articles (perhaps I edited this erroneously initially ... mea culpa) but the comment was later restored by the original user including qualification ... I merely refined it and it has not since been changed. In any event, a guideline means nothing if others do not respect or adhere to it. Moreover, by wikifying the initial links, there's no reason to have a tautology in the intro: 'Canadian national' is redundant, and perhaps this needs to be edited. Lastly, you are the only user who has so far objected to (and frankly, flip-flopped on) this, which was in place for awhile previously. This is not inconsistent with Wp style, just with personal style. On this basis, I agree to keep the article as is pending additional discussion. E Pluribus Anthony 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Where the tautology is in the current version? In what way did I flip-flop? I made some clarifications to my original comments after reviewing the article and the edits to the manual further, but I don't see a change in my basic position. And I still do not see why the links have to be moved from very early on in the article to the first line as you are insisting on. Ground Zero | t 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It may be that the "flip-flop" was agreeing to "National flag" instead of just "Flag". I did so because you presented a valid argument for the change. I would call that respecting the views of other Wikipedians (you) and working toward consensus (with you). I think you should really think twice about accusing me of flip-flopping on that. Ground Zero | t 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
National flag is explicit; later on, "Canadian national" is somewhat redundant (specific references like CN notwithstanding): too much said, not enough linked effectively. Perhaps the article introduction needs refinement. I don't see a change in my basic position either, and (I'll rephrase) I'm not insisting on wikifying those things upfront per se in this article or in most articles: it merely seems logical to do so initially here than later. As well: after I informed you that the flag's official moniker was the National Flag of Canada, you supported that; that seems to be what I called it, but will retract that statement if it's conducive to good relations. And perhaps this demonstrates the need for mutual clarity before ... expanding on an issue.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your comments, but since this seems to be a misunderstanding between you and me, I'll take it over to your talk page so that we can sort things out between us. Ground Zero | t 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Great; I'll clarify on user pages. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 02:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Satire Flag

Does this really belong on the page? There are many satire flags for Canada and it seems odd to include this in the article, especially considering it was originally accompanied (and assumedly motivated) by errant information.

I took it out; it really had no place in this article, and was unnecessarily political. The pot flags can stay in the pot articles- plus I'm not aprticularly a fan of seeing my national flag mocked this way in a serious article. -brihard 14:15 15 February 2006, EST

I agree its disrespect to the flag

aw, come on! the pot flag is cool! im canadian, im a suppoter of pot(ok i enforce the stereotype,fuck you) and i think it looks cool.24.144.137.244 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Act of Parliament

Regarding this phrase from the article: In 1963, the minority Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson gained power, and decided to adopt an official Canadian flag, by act of Parliament. I'm don't know whether Pearson intended to use an A of P, but in the end he did not. In the British tradition, national flags and coats of arms are part of the royal perogative, and the Act of Union 1801 explicitly assigns to the sovereign the right to create them by royal proclamation. In 1964 the Senate and H of C passed motions requesting the Queen to create a national flag of a certain design, but it was the Queen's royal proclamation that made the flag legal -- the procedures were different in detail from an A of P. I suspect that the phrase in the article (by act of Parliament) is a simple mistake and should be deleted, but if it is verifiable, we should mention later in the article that there was in fact no A of P. Indefatigable 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Duality Flag

I am not sure how important this flag is now, but if y'all wish to write about it, here is the graphic for it: Image:Canadian Duality Flag.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This has failed for two main reason. The image of the comic book can't fair use applied as the article isnt about the comic book or associated production of it(ie Author, illistrator, publisher etc). There are only three references, for something that grew and developed with controvestiy it would be reason to expect a broader range of sources. Gnangarra 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the National Flag (not only the current flag)

Since the current article is mostly about the Maple leaf flag with very little about the history of the flag, I suggest using Flag of Australia, Flag of Belarus and other flag FAs as examples for improvement (Wikipedia:Featured articles#Culture and society). Adding a comprehensive History section with all the previous National Flags of Canada pictured and discussed. Starting with the 1801 flag, describing the 1868 — 1922, 1924 — 1957 and the 1957 — 1965 flags (see here). Doable? feydey 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Alright. I'll take a run-through of FOTW and see what the order of flag is. I still think this article will be pretty long, but I think is a good thing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • One more question, should this article be in Canadian English? I have no problems either way. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Heritage book

I got my flag book from Canadian Heritage today and I will try to add some data from it. It is the same information that can be found online, with a few additions and clearer images (a better construction sheet). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Folding the Flag

Is there a good way of folding the flag, as there is with the US Flag? - Matthew238 07:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is two methods that I know of: there is folding it for breaking (where the flag is partially folded, then rolled up and raised on a flag pole) and folding in a sqaure to where the maple leaf is mostly shown (this was from the Public Works Dept). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadistic bastards

Hi:

Out of curiousity, who thinks it was a bunch of sadistic bastards who chose to decorate our flags with a 25-sided polygon so that no school child on earth could draw the fucking thing? Sure the Stars and Stripes has loads of stars, but it's fun for a kid to draw all those stars with a flip of the pencil. The Union Jack is complex, but straightforward once you tackle it. The maple leaf? Sheesh! If you go to a gradeschool, the walls are covered with these things that look like bloodstains as they try to draw the flag for their arts and crafts.

AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.188.47 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Frankly the design of the flag does not take into account of people of low intelligence and no artistic skills. --Kvasir 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha wow that was oddly random.

Maple leaf

The article says that the leaf is a sugar maple leaf. Do we have a citation for that claim? It looks like a generic leaf to me, and - coming from BC - is evocative to me of the bigleaf maple. I find it hard to believe that the officials designing the flag would have chosen a variety of tree native to some regions, when other varieties exist elsewhere, but I may be living in lotusland. Fishhead64 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is from Matheson in his writings, annoted at [4]. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Fishhead64 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Officially the leaf is not a sugar maple, but a generic maple leaf representing the 10 species of maple native to every Canadian province[5][6]. The generic maple tree species was also chosen as official Canadian arboreal emblem in 1996 and specifically not any one type of maple.70.64.138.246 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you know me and my friends have always thought it looks like a pot leaf. iv'e one that actually does have a pot leaf on it in my locker24.144.137.244 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I faced that problem in high school myself when I had a maple leaf earing. Yes, there is a variant of the flag where the maple leaf is replaced by a pot leaf and can be bought for about 10 USD. However, I do not think it will be worth noting that in this article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Flag Day

Happy Flag Day everyone. Let's try to get this article to GA/featured status in 2007. I'll see if I can get some books out there our flag. If anyone wants to collaborate to improve this article I'd be happy to help. Bobo is soft 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help. Happy Flag Day! Jentile 12:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bicolour

I have edited the flag caption. It read "bicolour" which I changed to "vertical triband." It is neither a tricolour nor a bicolour. A tricolour has three stripes of different colours (e.g. national flags of France, Ireland, The Netherlands); a bicolour has only two stripes of different colours (e.g. national flags of Portgual, Algeria, Angola, Ukraine). Like Canada, several other countries have tribands that use two colours: Argentina, Austria, Nigeria, Spain, Honduras, Latvia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Mongolia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru. - Slow Graffiti 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The present Maple Leaf Flag of Canada is a vertical tricolour. The term tricolour simply means three different areas. This new term triband is a recent invention (of the last 20 years or so) and its use just adds confusion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When I think of bicolor flags, I tend to think of Poland. Tricolor, I think of the French, Italian or Russian flags. With the Canadian flag, I just think the triband would be easier, since it shows three bands regardless of color. We can always explain the vexillology terms in the article or on a list of terms. I am sure there is a list already here, but I need to find it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don, it is good to see you're still around! The Maple Leaf is definitely not a tricolour as it does not have different colours for each band. In fact, as the article states, in heraldic terms, it is a red flag with a white square in the centre. Matheson points out in his book that this was a unique invention at the time and officially given the term Canadian pale for it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the Canadian Government's official blazon for the flag is "Canadian pale." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"two angry faces arguing"

By a figure-ground reversal of the white square, the two upper corners of the square can be seen as silhouettes of two angry faces arguing. This has often been considered evocative of the nature of Canadian federalism, but was wholly unintentional. Can someone explain this to me? I do not see it. I also wonder about its relevance to the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the case of one of those vase-or-2-faces illusions. Keep staring. --Kvasir 05:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I honestly cannot see it either. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This may be one of those "devil's face" bills or those damn 3D posters I can't see but my other question stands. How is this relevant to the article? I believe it should be removed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've removed the paragraph. If someone wants to re-insert it, I'd appreciate a reasoning and a reference. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The two noses come down diagonally from the top corners of the white square and their foreheads are touching. Its easy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.1.74 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrepencies

In the article text it mentions that the flag was adopted in 64, yet flown in 65. But in the panel on the left it claims it was adopted in 65. What's the deal?

142.68.45.42 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. That sentence in the lead was a little misleading. I've removed it since the very next sentence nicely states that the flag first flew 15 Feb 65. The history section goes into the detail that it passed House of Commons and Senate in December 1964 and received Royal Assent in Jan. 1965 but that proclamation was delayed until 15 Feb. Just like the BNA Act was signed on 29 March 1867 but came into effect on 1 July. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Source on Colour

Is there any reliable sources that the colours of the Flag are "from Saint George's Cross, and white, from the French royal emblem since King Charles VII" as it currently states? The Canadian Heritage Website only states that Red and White are colours commonly used by Britain and France throughout History, and mentions nothing influencing King George V's decision to make Red and White the national colours. If anything it was more likely that his decision was influenced by Red Maple Leafs used on soldiers uniforms during the First World War, but that also is unsubstantiated.

Malachi is survivin (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know that it was ever explicitly stated why red and white were chosen. Page 3 of GFG Stanley's memo does state, however, that red and white were traditionally associated with Britain and France. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I will be reviewing this article. I like to review a section or two at a time, so please feel free to address the concerns I bring up at any time (no need to wait for the review to be finished).

  1. From the "Design" section, the first two sentences should be referenced.
  2. I remember this flag being a big deal in some areas. Is any reliable information available on it? If so, I think it would be a good addition to the article because it shows that the current flag design continues to be a subject of debate.
    1. Perhaps Canadian Duality Flag should be merged into this article (minus the trivia about Richard and Geoffrion), and the information at trcf.ca seems good.
      • A brief mention amongst alternative flags might be appropriate. It is a minor sidenote of no consequence and should not be given to much prominence in comparison to information about the current flag. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That makes sense. Since the mentions of Quebec's flag and the Acadian flag are mentioned in the lead but not in the article itself, the two of them and the duality flag could be mentioned in a short paragraph. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Using "half-mast" as a verb sounds awkward. "fly the flag at half-mast" would be better.
  4. As mentioned in the FAC, "what looks the best" sounds informal. I would recommend changing the wording to something like "what is most visually appealing".
  5. From the history section, "de jure" could use a link to its entry on Wiktionary.
  6. In the "History" section, the article claims that some information comes from Mike: The Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, but this book is not cited as a reference.
  7. A citation should be used for "Attachment to the old Canadian Red Ensign persisted for quite a while for many people, especially veterans."
  8. In "Pearson had been a significant broker during the Suez Crisis of 1956, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." Wikilinks should be used for "Suez Crisis" and "Nobel Peace Prize".
  9. I wanted to wait until I had watched the video linked in reference 14 to verify this, but most of the second paragraph in the "History" section is unreferenced (King, WWII, controversy leading to the Great Flag Debate, Pearson's Nobel Prize, and Egypt's objection)
  10. In the final paragraph of the "History" section, the M and F in "maple leaf flag" are not capitalized. They are capitalized everywhere else in the article, so this should be consistent.
  11. At the end of the "Protocol" section, it would be good to provide the most recent information about the half-mast controversy. The House of Commons voted on the issue on April 2 (the story can be seen here).

That should be it. There are a few things left to deal with, so I will place the article on hold for now. I want to mention that of all the articles that I've reviewed, the quality of the prose in this article has been the best. Once the concerns brought up here have been addressed, I will look over the article again to make sure it's all good. If you have any questions about the concerns I have brought up, please mention them here or on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed reading it. I'll go through your list now. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
All done. Gary King (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You've done a great job. This article now meets all of the GA criteria:
  • It is well-written, accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated appropriately.
I have listed it as a Good Article. Congratulations! GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)