Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Portugal

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

[edit] Flag of Portugal

Self-nomination. Less than a month ago, I did a major expansion and restructuring to this article where a few newly-created images (my authorship) were also added. It is an A-Class article according to WikiProject Portugal and is expecting a class reassessment from the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. I believe it follows all FA criteria, but the final decision is yours. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe I'm just being fussy with my spelling, but shouldn't the "color" section be spelt "colour"? As, to my knowledge anyway, the international convention for this word's spelling, apart from North America, is spelt with a "u"?--Phill talk Edits 17:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The wiki article spells "Color" and you find more Google results for "color" than for "colour"; nonetheless, "colour" does seem to be more universal according to the Commonwealth usage. The spelling MOS does give preference to the "our" variant over the "or" one, but if one variant is kept throughout the whole article, there is no problem. I'm OK if a change to "our" is preferred. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the consensus on NA v. Commonwealth english is that it doesn't matter which is used, as long as it is consistent in the article. IE, it's ok if the whole article is written in NA English, or in Commonwealth English, but should not be mixed. Image:Icons-flag-gb-sct.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-gb-sct.png 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter, I was only wondering, as I said it just me being picky ;-). Anyway, I'm gonna Support this article's FAC.--Phill talk Edits 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • American English seems to be predominant in this article, so it should be kept all in AE. There are still a few cases of BE that need to be removed: "honourable" in the "Colors" section, "favour" in the "1830 – 1910" section, and "honourable" in the "Flag protocol" section (twice).-- Carabinieri 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done. Thanks for finding those. Sometimes it might happen that variants get mixed, especially when the editor isn't a native-speaker of any of the variants. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Almost there. 1. The third level headings cause a lopsided ToC, suggest that ==Symbolism= be promoted. 2. Dashes needed in the section header for the years (and also between years) 3. Imperial equivalents would help make it accessible to a wider audience. 4. Curiously, seven castles -- what is so curious? PS I love the SVG flags. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support. Minor issues mostly. 1) Dates appear inconsistently. Would you like the article to be written in British English or American English? 2) Use of italics in quotes should generally be avoided per WP:ITALICS. 3) ...sometimes dating back to the begining of the 20th century. 4) The Wikimedia Commons link should appear as "Flags of Portugal"; this can be achieved using an external parameter. 5) "It was also used on the flag from 1640–1707 and 1816–1830." - Factual inaccuracy? It clearly seem the 1707 design uses a different structure, and the 1816 design follows it so there isn't a need to separate the periods. 6) ...this flag is almost similar to the current one - Given the previous statement, the flag is similar to the current one. 7) Sole years should not be linked per WP:DATE. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I fixed all of the listed issues and, though I didn't quite understand what you meant with 1), I reviewed all the linked dates and wrote them in the same style. As for either AE or BE, I don't have any preference, but since I wrote the article using the American variant, it's better to keep it this way (you found any other words non-accordingly?). About the shield image caption, I wanted to stress that that specific format was used during those periods, while from 1707 to 1816 and from 1830 to 1910, another shield shape (different from the current) was used. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) There were some switches to American English in the article recently, and the dates are inconsistent with that. 5) I understand that, but it might be confusing for the readers. It appears to be written differently now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • weak support a good article, although referencing in the introduction is poor Ahadland 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've noticed that the requirement (or not) of references on the lead section has been discussed somewhere, but I don't know if a consensus was reached on any of the views. The lead is defined as a summary of "the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Where the article explains these important points in a longer, deeper and more detailed fashion, all the necessary references are present, so is it really necessary to do it on the lead, if there aren't any dubious, questionable sentences? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It's clear , comprehensive and well structured. I particularly like the Evolution section. Galf 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very good article. I love the flags. Joaopais 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Galf; I like the Evolution section, too. --Crzycheetah 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. The WikiProject Portugal rating has changed to GA. Personally, I'm inclined to FA.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support but I've just reverted the GA rating, because only through GA candidacy can an article achieve that rating. In fact, replacing an A-Class rate for GA-Class is downgrading it. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.