Talk:Mace of Nova Scotia/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: MediaKyle (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria - my aim is to make the article as good as possible - but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• @MediaKyle: Initial comments are below - some changes to make, but nothing major prosewise. I am recommending some structural changes (rearranging sections, and removing two), but it's largely moving things around rather than wholesale changes to the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Pi.1415926535: Thank you very much for the review! I believe I've addressed everything you've raised here so far. I implemented the majority of your recommendations, with notes below. Let me know what you think. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle: Looking good; a few replies below. Once we're settled with the prose I'll do the final source check. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle: Almost there - just one phase from a source that needs rewritten, and some suggested source parameters. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535:: I think I've addressed everything now, thanks again for all your help. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Great work, passing now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• Is the official name "Mace of the Province of Nova Scotia" or "Mace of Nova Scotia"? Right now, the article title is the latter, but the former is used in the article.

I'm unsure if it actually has an official name. The best source on the matter is the book from Pike and McCreery, and they name it as "Mace of the Province of Nova Scotia". I chose "Mace of Nova Scotia" for the title because it's more concise. MediaKyle (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Is Great Seal of Nova Scotia a likely redlink? If not, would Symbols of Nova Scotia be a reasonable link target?

It is, yes. I have sources to write the article, I just haven't gotten to it yet. I left the redlink in case someone got to it before I did. MediaKyle (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wikilink sterling silver

 Done

• Alt text should describe what is in the image

 Done

• Replace "ceremonial staff" with "[[Ceremonial maces in Canada|ceremonial mace]]"

 Done

• Add a sentence like The mace is one of the official symbols of Nova Scotia.

The mace is actually not an official symbol of Nova Scotia, it's just listed amongst the symbols on the website of the legislature. It's a "symbol of Nova Scotia" in the sense that it's an item that represents our legislature, but it's status as a symbol has not been enshrined in legislation. See here for a list of the actual official symbols of Nova Scotia. I've been working on a userspace draft to replace the less-than-adequate Symbols of Nova Scotia article but I haven't got to that yet either. MediaKyle (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't suppose there's any source that explicitly notes that it's not a legislatively-enshrined symbol? It would be worth noting in the prose if such a source was available. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen that come up, no. The fact that the Mace is included on the Symbols of Nova Scotia article is just because it was included in a photo gallery on the website of the legislature - it's not generally referred to as a symbol. MediaKyle (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

History

• I recommend rearranging the sections - purpose first, then description, then history.

 Done

• Rearrange the paragraphs - have the 18th/19th century in one paragraph, and the 20th century in the other.

I played around with it for a bit, but I think the way the information is presented right now is ideal - the section isn't so long that it needs to be broken up. Open to suggestions if you disagree. MediaKyle (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is what I would recommend. Also, is there any information why Harris decided to donate a mace? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. As for why he donated a mace - as Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Harris would have been fond of tradition. Our legislature not having a Mace would have been seen as quite an oddity to anyone who's ever been in a Westminster style parliament, and I would assume he was just sick of the House not following tradition. Of course, that's just my own OR, and I've never seen an explicit reason given for his donation. MediaKyle (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

The Nova Scotia House of Assembly ruled in 1785 and 1819 that a ceremonial mace was to be acquired for the house, but neither order was carried out. The first order was issued on 5 December 1785, and directed the Speaker to acquire robes for himself and the clerk of the House as well as procure a mace, payment for which would be provided by the House. The direction to acquire robes was carried out, however no progress was made on acquiring a mace and the issue would not be raised again until over three decades later in 1819. On 16 April 1819, the Speaker was once again directed to procure robes and a mace, and still no progress was made on acquiring a mace. The issue was raised in the House once more on 29 January 1840, when a member of the House put forward a motion to purchase a mace which was not met with support and subsequently did not pass.

The Mace of the Province of Nova Scotia was gifted to the legislature by Chief Justice Robert Harris of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court on 5 March 1930. It was first mace to be used by the assembly and would thereafter be carried by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Assembly. Prior to the gift of the mace, the Sergeant-at-Arms carried a court sword. Harris had initially wished for the gift to remain anonymous, but agreed to have the mace inscribed upon his death, with the cost of the inscription paid from his estate. The mace is depicted on the flag of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, which was granted on 15 November 2019.

Description

• Is any information available as to why an older version of the coat of arms was used?

I'm glad you brought this up, because when I just went back to the source I found that what I wrote was incorrect - the Great Seal uses an older version, not the coat of arms. As to why, I don't think we have an answer to that - all Pike and McCreery says is "The compartments are: ... a representation of the Great Seal of Nova Scotia (as used from 1839 to 1879, during the first part of Queen Victoria's reign)". No more details provided about the choice of symbols. MediaKyle (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• The CASAA gives the length as 121.92cm (i.e. exactly 4 feet), the legislature site as 1.2 metres, and the Parliamentary Review as 4 feet. Those approximately agree with each other, but not with the Pike & McCreery source.

Fixed

Purpose and use

• Add a sentence or two summarizing Ceremonial maces in Canada with a link to that article. The link to Mace (bludgeon) isn't needed, as ceremonial maces aren't intended as actual weapons.

 Done

• Move the footnote about the Sergeant-at-Arms into the prose of this paragraph.

 Done

See also

• Remove this section - all three links should be in the prose.

I removed the link to Ceremonial maces in Canada as its now redundant (that article actually came after this one), but I've left the other two, as they're relevant but I don't see a way to reasonably work them into the article for now. As I explained above, the mace isn't an official symbol of Nova Scotia, so calling it a symbol at all in the text would be a bit misleading - it is, however, a symbol of the legislature, so a link to Symbols of Nova Scotia makes sense, and will make more sense once I overhaul that article. As for General Assembly of Nova Scotia, this is more for a reader who wants to learn more about the government of Nova Scotia in general - the mace is specific to the House of Assembly, whereas the General Assembly is the entire provincial legislature. MediaKyle (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I see your point about Symbols of Nova Scotia. I don't think General Assembly of Nova Scotia is sufficiently related to this article to justify a link, but I won't insist on it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

References

• I strongly recommend converting this to standard referencing rather than Harvard. Because all of the sources are cited as a whole (rather than being cited multiple times to multiple pages), Harvard-style just adds a bunch of whitespace with no real benefit.

I appreciate the feedback, but this reference style is much easier for me and I'd like to keep it this way. I have a hard time picking out the text when all the citation templates are in the body of the article. I personally just think it looks nice too. MediaKyle (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You might want to consider list-defined references then. You can keep the references in one place in the wikicode, while simplifying display for readers. Obviously not a GA requirement, though. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Further reading

• Given that the article is relatively short, move any relevant information from these links into the article, and remove this section.

 Not done: I incorporated one of the news articles that mention the value of the mace, but I don't see any reason to remove the extra materials. They may be of benefit to a scholar at some point, and sometimes it's just interesting to read old news coverage. They could in theory be used as supporting references, but there's no new information to be brought in from those articles that isn't covered in one of the cited works. MediaKyle (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:FURTHER, further reading sections should contain material that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. While I understand your intentions and the value of contemporary news coverage, these links seem to largely contain information that's already in the article, so I don't think they're the best choice for further reading. Wikipedia isn't intended as a database of sources for scholars. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I strongly believe the further reading section improves the article. MediaKyle (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fine - it's not a GA requirement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

External links

• I'm not sure if the Canadian Association of Sergeants-at-Arms link is really useful

 Done: It's a supporting reference for the length of the mace now.

• Remove the Commons category link, as there's not a category for this specific mace.

 Not done: I think it's helpful to provide readers with links to related commons categories, when applicable. We only have one photo of the Mace of Nova Scotia, but readers may like to see other provincial and territorial maces. MediaKyle (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources

• Newspaper sources should have page numbers

 Done

• the mace is moved to brackets on the underside of the table directly copies the source and needs to be rephrased. No other copyvio issues, so presuming this was unintentional.

 Done

• McDonough needs pagination

 Done

• All online sources pass verification.

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.