Talk:Royal Military College of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Education in Canada
This article is part of the Education in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Royal Military College of Canada was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 20, 2007

Contents

[edit] Copyright Information

From the copyright page of this articles source website (1 or 2):

Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:
Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

This is not compatible with the GFDL which allows anyone to alter the text of a Wikipedia article. Further, the GFDL under which Wikipedia is licensed, does not forbid commercial use, e.g. burning Wikipedia onto DVD-ROM and selling it. The license of the DND forbids this:

Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada’s copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).

Therefore, this article has to be rewritten from scratch or be deleted. Same for the flag. -- JeLuF 21:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)


The above seems to be referring to an earlier version of this page. I'm guessing it reappeared when the page was recreated. -- Cjrother 15:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] copyright of images

The new images on the page are copyrighted. Is that acceptable on wikipedia? I thought only public domain images were ok. Cjrother 19:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted images are OK, as long as the holder of the copyright has granted the public a licence to use them under terms compatible with the GFDL. This is the situation with many images that have been created specifically for Wikipedia: they are copyrighted, but licensed under the GFDL. The other situation where copyrighted images are OK is under fair use. I have no idea what the situation is for the images in this article.--Indefatigable 03:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Berton

Pierre Berton was listed as a notable professor, but I haven't found any evidence that he actually was an RMC professor. He taught courses at RMC during the Second World War, but this was at a time when RMC was used as a training centre. It had ceased operating as a military college in 1942 and did not resume that function until 1948. Eron 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Pierre Berton as a notable professor. VictoriaEdwards 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC) My sources had included www.cbc.ca/news/obit/berton_pierre/, www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?0385659385, www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/history&people/berton.html, and www.bookclubs.ca/catalog/display.pperl?0385658427.

[edit] Lists

  • A fair number of the lists that dominate this article seem to be fairly irrelevant. While certainly notable professors and alumni should be included, I'm not sure what the need is to include lists of the Governors General, Honorary members, and so forth, it doesn't add much (if anything) to the article itself, and I think the article would be much more improved if we were to focus on information about the school itself. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CopyEdit and References

  • I just did a fairly thorough copyedit of the article, minor grammar things, removed a couple useless charts. I also tried to standardize the references though there are a fair number missing. I tried to find references for the chart info and some of the other claims (including the ontario law) but couldn't find most of them. I'll look again later, if anyone else wants to help find references, please do! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Year Orientation Period

I added a section on the First Year Orientation Period experienced by all cadets. Feel free to edit the section. I hope not too much information will be removed due to irrelevance. I am sure that all information is accurate as I experienced it first hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OCdt24550 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Trivia

As far as the weathervane and the torpedo trivia, is it provable that the torpedo points in a random direction, and the weathervane does not point to the all-girl dormitory? 64.228.222.85 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

These are legends passed down each year at the college. It would be hard to prove them exactly: besides, what if they were placed under that intention but incorrectly? Psyklek 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge coin

I'd like to see a photo of the Challenge coin mentioned on this article, uploaded if possible. --JAYMEDINC 00:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost mine... -Germ (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Standard

I've tried to combine various sections and give the whole article a bit more flow. I think there's more of a logical development, although I'm stuck on some of the tables (mainly the History one). I know that's how I learned it, but it seems like it could be written in sentences/paragraphs and be much more appealing.

69.156.144.214 14:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(AN RMC OCDT)

Have you deleted information from the page? Reviewing the edit history, it seems some info is missing. Andrew647 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (Another RMC OCdt)

[edit] GA Failed

I'm sorry, but I have to fail this article for it's review for Good Article status. I'll explain why, using the definition of a good article:

  1. It is well written? Mostly. Some general capitalisations according to the WP:MOS might need to be reviewed, especially with your lists. Some minor general copyediting is required in parts, particularly in your paragraphs that preceded a list (one of note is the Admission Requirements section). This line "The older, historic buildings, located on the 41 hectare peninsula in Kingston, Ontario, blend with the modern academic, athletic and dormitory facilities." suggests taste, and is possibly contentious. It's in your lead, so it shouold be aptly referenced also, which it's not. Another issue with the Manual of Style is the reference formatting. You've simply got the websites/URLs for many of these entries. These should be formatted to a consistent standard. If you want to find a standard method of citation that suits the content of the page, have a look at Special:Cite and put any Wikipedia page in there. It will give you several different examples of how to cite a Wikipedia page. Pick one, format your footnote references all to that standard and stick with it.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Factually accurate? Sure, the references confirm this, but for the average reader, if they want to confirm the reference, or seek outside information, it's tough to find citations. There's a small handful, but inline citations are sparse. A lot more is required to pass GA.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. Yes, broad in coverage. Perhaps more depth could be explored in parts, but for the purposes of being a Good Article, it's certainly broad enough, but this will need to be adressed further before reviewing for WP:FAC.
  4. It is neutral. I don't believe it's completely neutral. There does seem to be a sway of bias towards the article, which is natural for a page editor, but there needs to be tightening up in this area, for instance the lead, as I mentioned in Point 1, could be worded it a way that doesn't suggest any bias. The term "blend" generally refers to something that has been effective. Should this be effective, then it should be referenced by a third party source. Generally, that doesn't seem to be an issue, as there's a blend of first party sources (i.e. the College's own website) and third parties.
  5. It is stable. This is the one regard this page is its strongest (which is perplexing as this is where most tertiary istitution pages seem to suffer). Keep the consistency of editing as it is, and the page will perform well.
  6. Images. Appropriate with fair use rationale. Appropriate? Selectionwise, yes. The selection of images is good, however the tininess of the thumbnails almost nullifies their existence. Increase their size and they'll be more useful to the viewer. Though one can click the image to view its own page and see the image in its full size, it's more appropriate to have the image large enough at a glance so as to be able to avoid this.

One last thing I'll address is the length of the lead. I'd like more volume in the lead, given the length of the article, it should be 2-3 paragraphs long. Have a look at WP:LEAD for more information.

On the volume of work to be done (as well as the fact that such a volume as this, with the small team of editors working on it) I have to fail this. Once these items are addressed, feel free to re-nominate the article. If you have any questions, feel free to comment on my talk page and I'll respond promptly. --lincalinca 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I think that mentioning that it is the college numbers that precede people's names is necessary, noting the significance of the college number, and description of the S,H, designations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.99.148 (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Some images were added and their are truly useless like the foil and the canex logo. Also, there is quite a lot of junk in the article. Is it really necessary to know that distance learning is taught in a classroom, by a correspondance course, by a CD or by internet. This sort of junk has to go.