Talk:Canada's Walk of Fame

Canada's Walk of Fame has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Canada GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Toronto Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TorontoWikipedia:WikiProject TorontoTemplate:WikiProject TorontoToronto articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are there any non caucasian star in the walk of fame? Lil Flip246 23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,Buffy Sainte-Marie and Kenojuak Ashevak are First Nations people, while Robbie Robertson is part Mohawk. -Dhodges 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Ferguson Jenkins is African-Canadian. ~Scorpion0422

So was Harry Jerome. Also, Paul Anka's heritage is Lebanese/Armenian. PKT (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the majority is caucasian, even though canada is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Lil Flip246 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not that the Walk of Fame is being biased or descriminatory or anything. There really aren't any visible minorities who meet the qualifications and are fully deserving, except maybe Graham Greene and David Suzuki. ~Scorpion0422

Any need for the 2005 inductees section?

I was wondering if that should just be deleted. I deleted the 2003 induction ceremony section a while ago because it only mentioned the ceremony. So, what do you guys think? is there any need for the 2005 inductees section, because if we keep that, maybe we should do one for each year. ~Scorpion0422

Worthiness of those immortalised

While no one is suggesting that the people remembered on the 'Walk of Fame' are not wonderful or good people, worthy of acclaim, this does not warrant the use of the word 'amazing' to describe them in this Encyclopedic entry. It is a weighted value-judgement clearly expressing a preference for THESE people, as against all other people, and therefore should most certainly not be allowed. I have changed the entry to reflect this, suggesting that those 'remembered' on teh Walk are accomplished in their fields(which no one disputes) but excluding the word 'amazing' which implies a moral value, or that the achievments of these primarily audio-visual stars and artists are 'super-human' or otherwise beyond belief.

The only reason I reverted it was because the sentence you replaced it with was awkward and had some grammar errors. I don't think it matters if we have the word amazing in or not, but if you feel that strongly, then it can stay out. Scorpion0422

"Amazing" doesn't have any moral meaning nor does it mean super-human; it simply, in this context, means extraordinarily accomplished.76.68.75.114 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should a pet be inducted?

Some might disagree not to have London from The Littlest Hobo on the Canada Walk Of Fame because he's not human, but a dog can have a lifespan of 10-15 years and the series started in 1958 as a film.

Who knows if they do another movie remake and find a dog similar to the previous Londons that played the main role? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.108.222 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Hollywood facts are skewed

First, there are 5 categories for the Hollywood WoF, the fifth being live theater. Also, there is no intentional skew towards Americans. In fact, it is an interesting study to look at all the countries of birth of the artists on the WoF. The only requirement is that Hollywood had something to do with their success. Also, is is not possible to buy one's way onto the sidewalk. The selection committee is part of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and one does in fact have to be selected, regardless of the fact that there is a fee associated with induction. The fee covers the cost of the star itself, the ceremony expenses, and a minor amount for upkeep. The alternative is taxpayer money, and that would not fly in the United States. With regard to repeat stars, there were some repeats in the earlier years, but this has stopped due to limited space and the desire to be more inclusive. The purpose of the two WoF's is similar, but Hollywood's is not for the United States, and not even for Los Angeles, but for Hollywood. There are some local television and radio personalities who would be unknown beyond the local broadcast area. New York's Broadway stars are not included. Hollywood's Honorary Mayor Johnny Grant is included. This is about Hollywood. The whole thing got started because local stars used to sign their names on the ceiling of the Hollywood Hotel, which was torn-down in the '50's. The WoF was conceived to carry on the tradition. Canada's version is a somewhat sad but not atypical nod to the stepchild status that Canadians feel compared to their more spotlit southern neighbors. Canadians do many things better than we Americans, and would do well to stop comparing themselves to us. Tim A, Hollywood, CA

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It needs an overall copyedit. Also, the criteria in the article is in the list form, which is not usually prefered
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Slightly short, could possibly be expanded more
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This article needs an overall copyedit, as the writing is not the best. Also, is it possible to make the criteria to be included in list form into prose-form? Until these issues are addressed, I've put the article On-hold. Thank you for your work thus far and good luck in impoving this article to GA status. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll work on copyediting and I went ahead and prosified the list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is

Canada's Walk of Fame, Toronto, Ontario is a walk of fame that acknowledges the achievements and accomplishments of successful Canadians.

redundant, but the walk of fame is merely a disambiguation page and does not define the terminology. PKT (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Good, althought could be better
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

It has improved since my first review, and thus it Passes GA.

no 2008 nominations?

What happened to this year's inductees? Usually, the inductees would be revealed in February/March and we would have the ceremony in June. But there has been no mention of anybody for 2008. They have a message on the website saying that to commemorate the 10th anniversary this year they are redesigning the site but that nmessage has been there for a few months now. So has anyone heard if there will be a ceremony this year and should we add something on the page mentioning this? 76.68.239.216 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

That message has been up since March. I think (and this is just my opinion) it's because they haven't reached an agreement with the City of Toronto over their new location yet. There were several articles about it back in April. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]