Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Germany

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 00:47, 26 March 2008.

[edit] Flag of Germany

Check external links

Self-nomination: I've been working on this article for the last few months, getting info from various sources and documents in an attempt to make this article as good as it can be. It has gone through GA review, Peer review and a number of copy-edits. Writing a featured article is new to me and so now, after going through all of these procedures, it is clear to me that the only way that I can figure out what else needs to be done to make it suitable for FA is to nominate it and see what the response is. Looking at other FA flag articles, I believe this article is ready for nomination.

Wherever possible, I have supplied English references. Many sources are German legal documents or periodicals and I could not find any English versions. Since the history of the flag is intricately tied with the history of the country, a lot of German history is included - so I have concentrated on references that relate specifically to the flag, to prevent duplication. If someone wants to know more about actual historical events, they can look at the relevant articles and follow the references there.

For some facts that I have unearthed, I have so far been unable to find "reliable sources" to back them up. For some of these, I have commented out some parts of the text until such sources become available - other passages can also be commented out in a similar manner if deemed appropriate. Some other facts have no hard documents behind them but are common knowledge in Germany - or at least appear to me to be so, after the time I have spent here.

So I am interested in any suggestions you may have. Thanks. 52 Pickup (deal) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Prior to the FAC restart, a copy-edit request was made at WP:LOCE on 13 March. 52 Pickup (deal) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've added a {{cn}} about the intent of the Allied Control Commission; we require a source denying the all-too-likely possibility that the four powers were simply marking their own failure to agree on the future of Germany, which technically continued until the peace treaty of 1990. Aside from that, support, as before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for having another look at this. It is true that at the Allies had not yet agreed on what exactly would become of Germany upon formation of the ACC, so I cannot produce a source to deny this. But the flag was only for use by German shipping since international law requires international shipping to have some sort of flag: and since the ACC had not yet figured out what to do with Germany, that's why this ensign was only provisional, as stated. The intention to humiliate can be seen in the passage of the law that I've quoted in that no respect shall be shown towards this flag and it should not be dipped in salute to any other country. It has also been suggested that the colour choice of this provisional ensign was also part of this humiliation since it contains the national colours of the Allied powers: red-white-blue (UK, USA, France) or red (USSR). But I have been unable to confirm if this was deliberate. So I've reworded that section to make the statement about humiliation clearer so I then took the liberty of removing the cn-tag since the citation provided gives the reasoning. Does that answer your question? 52 Pickup (deal) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Do you have a source for that deduction, from no respect shall be shown towards this flag and it should not be dipped in salute to any other country to humiliation? If not, it is Original Research, since not being dipped to the Union Jack in English waters is a great privilege, which most national flags do not possess. My OR would be that this simply means that it is not a national flag, and the Allies were not going to invent foreign relations for Germany before deciding on its domestic relations. Neither conjecture belongs in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The idea that a foreign power determines what flag you use is also generally an affront to a nation's sovereignty but, since I cannot explicitly prove that, nor provide any more solid evidence at this point, I've removed the "humiliation" bit. 52 Pickup (deal) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, after May 1945, there was no sovereign German state. It may well be true and sourceable that C stands for Capitulation, and that humiliation was intended; but let's have sources, and be sure they are duly weighted. For now, the tag is dealt with, and I continue to support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support.
    • Various sections require expansion. For example, look at the "Civil flag" section- is two paragraphs really all there is?
      • For this to be actionable, you need to provide an example of something missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • How long has this been the civil flag? What is the origen of the mentioned "connection"? What are some other uses, if any? Teh Rote (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Since March 1949, as is duly explained under History (so is the connexion). Please finish reading the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Since the info on other flag variants explicitly mention their respective year of introduction, I've done the same for the civil flag for completion. 52 Pickup (deal) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Requires more wikification. There should be more internal links.
    • Mild proseline spotted. Specifically, the "Revolution and the Frankfurt Parliament" section. It should need a bit more cleanup.
      • That section has two dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No, it doesn't. Teh Rote (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • It does indeed have three: 1848, 1850, and 1866. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure what the problem is here. The revolution occurred in 1848, after which the German Confederation was suspended and the Frankfurt Parliament was formed. The Parliament collapsed in 1850 and the Confederation was restored. With the Austro-Prussian War in 1866, the Confederation was abolished. To place the 1850-1866 period back in the previous section about the Confederation would look disjointed. 52 Pickup (deal) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I think it should be split into three paragraphs. Teh Rote (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Choppy sentences easily spotted. "The nature of Germany's national colours was summarised by heraldist Arnold Rabbow in 1968 as follows:" is one example.
      • Reworded. So what other ones are there? 52 Pickup (deal) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "The confederation, with the Austrian Emperor as its president, was created as a replacement to the now-extinct Holy Roman Empire, of which the Austrian Emperor was its last head." Seems a bit redundant, could pronoun be used instead of saying "Austrian Emperor" twice?
          • This one does seem weak, especially since it's not the same Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
            • What I mean here is that it's the same person: Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor was the last HR Emperor (1792-1806) and the first Emperor of Austria (1804-1835). Have attempted to reword this. 52 Pickup (deal) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "Returning from the war, veterans of the Lützow Free Corps founded the Urburschenschaft fraternity in Jena in June 1815." Why not add "after" at the beginnning of the sentence?
            • This is more the German than the English participle. But Upon might be better, given the timing: Waterloo was in June. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "The red-black-gold flag of the Jena Urburschenschaft featured prominently at this Wartburg festival and so the colours black, red and gold eventually became symbolic of this desire for a unified German state." Featured prominently? Should have another comma added.
          • Not after prominently; "at this Wartburg festival" is defining.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Those were two different concerns about the sentence. It should saw "was featured prominently", and "black, red, and gold". Teh Rote (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
                • So this article is in British English and does not use the serial comma. So what? Not actionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Similarly the intransitive sense of feature: "To be a feature (in); to participate or play an (important) part in" is sound British English; the last of the OED's defintions. Read WP:ENGVAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Oh, didn't realize that comma rule was acceptable in British English. I'm not too familiar with the dialect, so it caught me off-guard. Teh Rote (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "In the radical 1840s when harsh economic conditions struck, a black-red-gold flag was used again to symbolise the movement against the conservative order in favour of liberal republicanism." Doesn't make much sense.
          • Removed. This sentence was also rather redundant. 52 Pickup (deal) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "The objective of this organisation was the protection of the fragile democracy of the Weimar Republic, which was under constant pressure by both the far right and far left." What?
          • These two seem perfectly clear to me, although This organization was formed to protect might be more idiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I honestly can't find any more than that. If those problems are fixed, I'll change my vote to support. Teh Rote (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Overall, good, but not featured good. The references and external links are excellently formatted, I don't see any needed work there, but there should still be some cleanup. Teh Rote (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This Oppose is too vague to be actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Not anymore. Teh Rote (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks. As stated above, there is an open copy-edit request with LOCE. I have lost count how many times I have gone over this article so, if there are still problems with it and the LOCE will not answer my request, then I need to be told what the problems are because I can no longer see the wood for the trees. So I guess it's probably a good thing that I'll have to go on a wikibreak soon. 52 Pickup (deal) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
            • All my concerns have been addressed or agreeably refuted, so my vote has been changed to Support. Great job. Teh Rote (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm agree with them...Sabri76message 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support – This is my first comment at a Featured Article Candidacy, which shows that I have no relevant experience. However, having carefully read the entire article—fixing the few, minor style errors that existed—I have found it well-written, interesting, and extremely informative. It did not bore me but it made me want to keep reading (even though I would have anyway), and it was just the right length. The illustrations were also very useful, and well-placed. I cannot evaluate the sources, but I saw lots of them. The article was well-balanced and the sections functioned perfectly, being in the right order and having a good length. In my opinion as a layman, this article deserves to be featured. Waltham, The Duke of 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question I'm a little concerned that the article has missed an entire section on 'flag protocol' or usage guidelines, at least in the headings. Is there any particular reason why the article is missing this heading, as well as the headings or subheadings 'symbolism' and 'manufacturing'? I ask this question because most other successful FA flag articles have used similar headings, and I find it quite effective. I am also concerned whether this article is missing significant details. Still, in what the article does have, it seems quite impressive, particularly the history section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting points. Information related to flag protocol is spread through other sections (e.g. "Variants" and "Flag Days"). Similarly, symbolism is described in the introduction and is a main part of the History section since that is effectively a history of its symbolism. I am unfamiliar with any specific manufacturing information. - 52 Pickup (deal) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It's an unusual, but interesting approach you've taken. I still would like you to take a look through the approaches taken on Flag of India, Flag of Australia among other Flag FAs (some more listed at the Heraldry and vexillology project page). While I appreciate the way in which you've gone through history in your approach, I do prefer the way in which the other articles deal with headings, as it seems to be a classic and effective approach in how they go in giving information to the reader - how the headings are named and ordered, the way in which they deal with the relevant areas of law of the flag's country, and so on. It is up to you of course whether you wish to keep the article in its current form, or to modify it accordingly. But it's something worth considering, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.