Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Flag of Mexico

Before I got my hands on the article, it almost looked like a copy and paste job from the Flags of the World website. Now, with the help of User:Titoxd, User:Rune.welsh, User:Marcuse and User:Drini, and a few others, I managed to work my magic on this article. [1]. While it did have a peer review, with most things answered by me, I still think there could be some polishing and maybe a double check of the Spanish to English could be done. I also written two four articles on this subject, one of the flag flying days and the giant flags you see in Mexico a lot, so the article looks consise and also complete. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; it doesn't make much sense to name the citations as numbers, since they will get all mixed up anyway as things are added or removed. They're already one off. More comments on the way, I'm nearly ready to support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still new to this format, it was changed to this from {{ref}} and {{note}} with my permission. I'll toy around with it until I get everything right, but I am going to go seek some help. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem, I see now how it's working. No need to make any changes unless you decide to use the same reference for two citations. Anyway, a few more things: according to our own article on the PRI and what I've heard somewhere else (sorry, can't remember where), it's illegal to use the colors of the Mexican flag for political purposes, such as in a logo. That hasn't stopped the PRI, however. There should be some sort of reference to this law. Also, what text needs a check from Spanish to English? The quotes that appear to have been translated don't come with the original Spanish text, so I can't verify your translation. You mention that the flag change in 1968 was based on the Summer Olympics—was that because of the increased international attention or related to something else like the Tlatelolco massacre? Is the list of example locations of Banderas monumentales complete? I seem to recall seeing one of them in one of the cities surrounding Guanajuato. It might have been one of the semi-monumentales ones though. One more thing—I seem to recall that there was significant debate over whether the eagle in the coat of arms should face right or left, so that might be mentioned in the history section. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not think there was a law passed, because if that was the case, the PRI would have changed their logo. I'll check my references again. As for why the change of the flag design in 1968, I do not know why it was changed exactly due to the increased international attention or the second event you said. As for the list of the locations of the banderas monumentales, I created an article separate from this one and that one, which is at Banderas monumentales, has a full list of all of their locations. I just did not want the article to become list heavy, so I forked. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The great thing about Mexico is that the PRI wouldn't change their logo due to the minor detail of illegality. All kinds of stuff is illegal in Mexico, but no one pays attention. The PRI had such a stranglehold on that country that they could do whatever they pleased. I'll try to find a reference for that in particular. As for banderas monumentales, I'd remove the list from this article entirely—maybe add a few more examples to the prose and then forget it, since it doesn't make sense to me to have a list that includes 70% (or whatever) of the members of a set.--Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Mostly right, but there was no law passed on the issue, since it was killed in the PRI-dominated Senate of the time. At some point during the debate/scandal I believe the PRI argued that PRD having an almost identical logo to its own could confuse people while at the polls. Since PRI was the oldest party, it would have been allowed to keep its logo by the Federal Electoral Tribunal. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1) The "Coat of Arms" section does not belong here. This article is about the flag, not about the official symbols of Mexico. 2) No source for the original and new meaning of the colors. 3) No source for the claim that the secularization of the country was spearheaded by Benito Juárez. 4) No source for the information on the Standard of the Virgin of Guadalupe. 5) No source for Morelos' flag. 6) Overlinking, such as linking for the month April or for gold when mentioning this color--which is also incorrect, since it should link to Gold (color). 7) I'm uncomfortable with this article relying so heavily on the Flags of the World website. Is that a credible source? As far as I know, people are able to add information there without any reviewing mecanism. Oh, wait a minute, that's exactly what we do here. Nevermind. JoaoRicardo^talk 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) nuked; 2) added a book that I own; 3) nuked; 4) http://www.tareasya.com/noticia.php?noticia_id=4268; 5) same as four; 6)i'll try to trim down the links; 7) While I wish to say that FOTW is pretty accurate, this is really the only sources that I have that are in English and that their links work. There were other great sites, but most of them became 404's and others just copy from FOTW. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As for sites becoming 404, does anyone know if there is any policy regarding the use of the Internet Archive to provide external links? JoaoRicardo^talk 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I was asked to use the way back machine when I was sending BRSM through this same process, mainly since it dealt with specific information. If you think that the article could benefit from using the way back machine to add some references to the article, then we should use it. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• The coat of arms does belong here because it is right in the middle of the flag! It is ridiculous to have an article about the Mexican Flag and not say what it means. The source for the entire history section - from the Virgin of Guadalupe to the Army of the three guarantees (the whole paragraph) was all from the same source which is listed at the end of the paragraph. As far as Benito Juarez spearheading the secularization of the country, it is a well know fact in Mexican history, and it is described in the Benito Juarez article, do we need yet another reference? Marcuse 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Marcuse, the reference about the secularization was from FOTW, but I think I annoyed Joao with the over-use of the FOTW references. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. My fault. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I think you brought up a good point. Sorry if I sounded harsh, but I am seeing what you are getting at: I should try to use more sources than just one. While I am not trying to link spam, many of our flag articles are either copy and pastes from FOTW or from the CIA. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Um, sorry, I was actually replying to Marcuse about the coat of arms. :) JoaoRicardo^talk 05:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Oops, oh well. An update, I have fixed 6 about the overlinking, but if you think there are still too many links, just let me know. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• I added a new reference, I can add others later. These facts are easy to back up, I'd rather add references that start deleting. Marcuse 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that Juarez spearheaded secularization of the country. I'll look for my textbook and reference that part. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. JoaoRicardo^talk 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 1. Section 6.1 is considered to be bad style. Use a semicolon to create a heading, or promote the it to a top level heading. 2. The two images in the lead would look better if they were the same size. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the height of the second image by making it 280px width, and I did the semi-colon thing you suggested. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well-written and informative prose that also conforms to all the technical requirements. Andrew Levine 11:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I'm satisfied that the breadth of the article is complete. Well illustrated and organized. Marcuse 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support as much as my Mexican-biased vote counts. The article seems quite complete to me now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support flag articles are rarely this detailed and informative. --Revolución (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support; this is a great article. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight Oppose. I now SUPPORT. The pictures need better placement, especially the middle section. I believe pictures make an article. If they look mis matched, then the article fails... Spawn Man 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you wish for them to be in galleries or removed? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer thumbs to galleries. Shuffle the thumbs around so that the space between pictures is around 1 - 1.5 inches. I could always do it myself & see if you like the set out? Spawn Man 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeargh! I just changed the middle section around before I saw this. Ok, what I did is I made the construction sheet image a thumbnail image, and the rest in galleries. Sure, go ahead and try what you wish to try out. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've moved the pics around. See if you like or no like. Post me soon so I can decide on my vote... Spawn Man 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks a bunch. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. I didn't really do that much. Changing vote. Spawn Man 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, great article, interesting, comprehensive -- Astrokey44|talk 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support an article I can support! The intro is ever-so-slightly disjointed though, but that's such a minor issue. Excellent work and a really neat article! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• support goes without saying -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great rewrite. However, can someone fix "The shades of the Mexican flag have not been defined by law, these following shades can be used to draw or make the flag"? The rest of the article is fine, but that sentence is certainly not brilliant prose. Ambi 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed it. Is that better? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Ta. :) Ambi
• Support, albeit with bias, as I've worked on the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great article. --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Fito 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)