Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

[edit] Flag of Canada

previous FAC


I am self-nominating this article because I believe it meets the relevant criteria, and recently helped to get the article promoted to Good Article status. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments As a Canadian I would like to see this as a FA. However:

  • The chart on my PC is squished and disturbed.
  • Is there no way to expand the alternative section?

I will post my other comments later when I have the time. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The image gallery should look fine if you are using a resolution of 1024x768 or greater, which covers pretty much everybody. What screen size are you using?
  • The alternative section is a new addition. In reality, it would be more appropriate as a subsection of an existing section, but it is not really related to any of the other sections. Perhaps if some new heading suggestions could be given, then it could be merged into one of them. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support.--Avala (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Minor concern - This isn't an oppose, and it might be stylistic. However: There are two sources at the top and a lot of facts. That worries me. Some of it should be common, especially in Canada, but an South African (for example) reading the article might not know such things. Also, if this passes (and it most likely will unless something big comes up), will we all be singing "O Canada"? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • References generally do not need to be in the lead as long as the information is also presented later on in the article and properly referenced there. I also plan on making O Canada a WP:FA, so if you don't sing now, you will sing then ;) Gary King (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, thats why I said stylistic. Its a good article, from what I can tell. And that song was always fun. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

SupportSorry about the time delay. I see nothing wrong so far... Look at these Flag FAs...

Just to see if we can add anything that's in here. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The big difference between the Canadian flag and those flags is that Canada and its flag are both relatively new compared to, say, Germany, which has a 1,000+ year history :) So the history section is a lot shorter here. Gary King (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong as far as I see. Good job Gary King. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Poorly written. Here are random examples from just the lead, showing why the whole text needs serious attention. I do wonder at reviews that say things like "nothing wrong". And "so far" apparently forecasts my review.

  • "base red flag"—What is "base red"? If a colour, it must have a hyphen.
  • Now which is it to be: is or iz? Not both, please. If Canadian spelling allows the s (I suspect the z is more common), it needs to be consistent.
  • Confused: opening sentence refers to the national flag; this is then contrasted with a ?nautical flag that predated it. My head is spinning.
  • Awkward, possibly redundant words, such as "holding" and "occurred".
  • "Picked"—"selected" or "chosen" would be more formal.
  • "As the winner"—redundant.
  • Why is "maple leaf" capitalised? I see the daughter article title isn't.
    • it's capitalized in some places because it is being used as the name of the current flag. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • agree. The flag name is capitalised; the leaf of the maple tree is not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Several"—fuzzy numerator: tell us how many provinces: that's what an article is for.
  • Infoblot: crowded and gawky. TONY (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Infoblot? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I think Infobox objections should be raised at Template:Infobox Flag. Its usage is pretty standard among flag articles, and it provides a fairly useful summary of the flag without requiring readers go through the entire article. I'll give the article a thorough copyedit now. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm going through the article now for a copyedit. Gary King (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Tony, could you look through the article again? I've spent some time to copyedit the article, and think that it has improved since you last saw it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Wow, I missed a lot. Nice Tony.

  • I find this confusing: Before this, the Canadian Red Ensign charged with the shield of Canada in the fly, authorized for use on Canadian merchant ships from 1892...

What's it supposed to mean? I mean I do sort of understand from the subsequent sentences, but it would seem rather confusing to most and would take some time to comprehend.

  • And many statements are still childish. It too forms a component of other Canadian flags, notably the flag of Manitoba and the flag of Ontario.. "It too"?
  • Ahem, mind mentioning the other two designs that were beaten out by the current one?

--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues brought up by Sunset have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Structure needs work. The design section jumps right in to details about whether the point count on the maple leaf means anything. It could use some introduction then cover the dimensions, colors and maple leaf in a pattern of general to specific. The history section is a summary but likewise needs an introduction. I would expect a paragraph on the history of the previous flag. The first paragraph right now is mostly current protocol for the Union Jack, which could probably be moved to Protocol. It also says the Jack "was used as a de jure flag until the adoption of the current flag in 1965" - this is the first time the Jack is mentioned (after the lead) and a reader might wonder where the Red Ensign fits in. Should the Alternative flags section perhaps mention the Queen's flag and the Governor General's flag? Is there a reason for the commercial external link (EFlagsource)? Gimmetrow 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you take another look at the article now to see if your concerns have been addressed? Gary King (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a marked improvement in article structure. Would it be possible to merge some images into the text to avoid the gallery? Gimmetrow 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the gallery is very useful, especially to show the evolution of the flag. Here's what it used to look like, and the gallery helps organize it a lot. If you really feel strongly about it, though, then I can do something about it. Gary King (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't feel strongly about it, but galleries tend to be temporary measures while an article is developing. Galleries tend to make an article look incomplete, and so few FAs have them. I don't think a gallery is an obstacle to FA, though. Gimmetrow 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Or just reduce the images in the gallery. I think we can remove the former Union Flag, the first confederation flag, and the 1920's ensign. We have to keep the Red Ensign, Union Jack, Pearson Pennant, and maybe the chosen flag with the multiple point maple leaf. I personally think another section can be added to other official flags of Canada. I did this with the article Flag of Lithuania, which is a featured article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments Overall, I liked this article and thought it was pretty well-written. I did notice, however, that the lead mentions a national contest to create the flag, but this is not mentioned in the body of the article. If you can fix that mismatch I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I know of no government-sponsored contest to design the flag and have now removed that sentence from the lead. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Gracias! Gary King (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources concerns:
  • Accuracy: The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website. Even Wiki's article on them states that they have outdated information.
  • What makes this a reliable source (it looks like a personal website)?
Please, reviewers Supporting a nomination should remember that WP:V is policy. An unlinked date at Fraser, Alistair B. (1998-01-30). "A Canadian Flag for Canada", The Flags of Canada. Retrieved on April 20, 2008 results in inconsistent date formatting; pls check all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
All done. Gary King (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.