Talk:Saskatchewan Marshals Service

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 13:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Saskatchewan Marshals Service was legalized in Saskatchewan through the passing of the The Police (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, 2023?

• Source: https://pubsaskdev.blob.core.windows.net/pubsask-prod/142127/Bill-144-2023.pdf, specifcally page 2 (can include page 3 if needed).

• • ALT1: ... that the Saskatchewan Marshals Service is being blamed for poaching police officers from the RCMP, but the first 10 officers are not from the Saskatchewan RCMP? Source: https://www.sasktoday.ca/provincial-news/none-of-ten-marshals-recruits-are-former-rcmp-10315655
  • ALT2: ... that the Saskatchewan Marshals Service recruited a former RCMP officer from British Columbia despite claims of the SMS "poaching" officers from Saskatchewan RCMP? Source: https://www.sasktoday.ca/provincial-news/none-of-ten-marshals-recruits-are-former-rcmp-10315655
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Philippe Housiaux
  • Comment: The SMS is a new police service that's suppose to go operational before the end of 2025, assuming Saskatchewan news is up to date. Working on improving and expanding it. As for QPQ, I'm working on the DYK nomination (page) that's being reviewed. Hope that it'll be resolved soon. Apologies for that. Otherwise, I'll go and change it under advisement.

Also, there's no free images of the SMS in Commons.

5x expanded by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 20 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC).

• A bit tricky to review, some work is needed on the article side and the DYK side. The article is long enough. A QPQ was done, although it would be better if it specifically noted the process of review. It does not qualify for a 5x expansion as submitted, but does qualify as a new article (courtesy ping Aŭstriano). Not seeing any copyvio. However, the article needs copyediting before it is main-page ready. The prose is choppy, and I'm not sure some of the wording (eg. "legalize the existence of the SMS" is accurate. The tesnses need looking at (eg. "In June 2025, SMS Marshals are deployed in Saskatchewan"), very clearly and as stated in sources the force did start operating in 2025, so the lead is already outdated. The hooks are not sufficient, naming legislation doesn't really pass DYKINT, and the RCMP angle seems to be mostly a rather banal political claim. I would suggest entirely new hooks would be needed. CMD (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)\
  • No problem. I can do check the tenses in a bit. TBH, I'll go see and try to brainstorm one new DYK. Ominae (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Got an idea. ALT1: ... that the Saskatchewan Marshals Service was suppose to be operational in 2026 instead of 2025? Ominae (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
      • I don't think that meets WP:DYKINT... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
        • I think I’m running out of ideas with the others not considered. :( Ominae (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd think of something sharpish. This times out soon.--Launchballer 23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• • • • • • Slapping this idea.

ALT1: ... that the Saskatchewan Marshals Service is mandated to investigate crimes related to agriculture?

ALT2: ... that the Saskatchewan Marshals Service ‘s first operation was to conduct joint patrols with the Prince Albert Police Service? Ominae (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Article has reached the WP:DYKTIMEOUT limit; as we are currently handling many more nominations than we can run, marking this for rejection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saskatchewan Marshals Service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Ominae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Template

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:

Written comments

Comprehensiveness and prose

• Two big problems that I'd like to see addressed before going any further with this review. First, the article still uses the present tense to refer to late 2025 (i.e., more than four months ago), and thus the information is out of date; it either launched or got delayed (second one seems accurate). Second, there are significant WP:PROSELINE issues, as well as multiple paragraphs and sections which are single sentences. As such, the quality of the text is far from "reasonably well written". Recognizing that you have not had much experience working on GAs, I'm going to forego a quick fail and wait for a week to see if there can be some work towards addressing these issues before continuing with a more detailed review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Hi Ominae, this has sat for a little under a week, with no work towards addressing concerns. If I don't see any movement within a couple days, I will have to fail this nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Verdict

• Due to inactivity from the nominator, I am failing this nomination. Please address the concerns above before renominating. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

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.