Talk:Flag of Colorado/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a sucker for vexillology... so let's give this a shot! ~Vocem Virtutis

Good Article Criteria

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):

   At a glance, this article actually does seem pretty well-written, which isn't at all what I'm used to, so props to you. I assume there may be a few nitpicky issues that I may find and take care of on my own, and I'll let you know if I notice anything bigger when I go more in-depth, but I think that this criterion looks pretty near well-met.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I'll have to take some time later to go into each of the sources and references. Again, I don't notice issues off the bat.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See "First Thoughts" below. I think that overall, the scope is decent, but a little more information wouldn't hurt.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This looks good to me at a glance.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here.

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):

   I'll have to check the photos sometime later to ensure they've been used properly, but I definitely am a fan of including the historic flags. Again, props!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

First Thoughts

Right off the bat, the article looks pretty solid to me, though there are a few things that I definitely need to take a closer look at. I checked the list of Good Articles to see if there were other articles about US State Flags that we might be able to use to give us a bit of direction. As it turns out, the flags of Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Washington state have all been promoted to Good Articles. Looking and comparing the articles, I think that it might be best to make some changes to the section on "Reception and other uses". It seems to me that the section is much more about the 'other uses' half of that phrase. I think it would be best to make that section dedicated to the usage of the flag. I like the idea of having some information on the reception of the flag, but I think that reception should probably be its own section, assuming there's enough information out there to justify a new section. My other thought is that it might be good to include a section on flag protocol, as seen in the articles on the flags of West Virginia and Washington. I can't say that I know whether the flag of Colorado has any unique protocols that are supposed to be followed, but if there are, I definitely think a section on that ought to be included. Again, all things considered, I still think this is absolutely a solid article, and I apprciate the work I see you've already put into it; I think that just a little more will definitely push this over to GA status!

I'm about to start on this but I'll lay out my idea before I do so. I am planning to move the first sentence from "Reception and other uses" (about the NAVA survey) to the end of the "Design and symbolism" section, since the survey dealt specifically with the design of the various state/provincial flags. I have found enough material that I think a "Protocol" section would be doable, so I'll add that between "Design and symbolism" and "Other uses". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Vocem Virtutis, I have added the "Protocol" section with what info I could find. I believe I've addressed everything you brought up so I'm going to go ahead and ping you - if there's anything else that needs adding, fixing, or touching up, please let me know! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you much! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved Issues

Lead

The lead looks very good to me. There were a couple grammatical errors I cleaned up. The one sentence I don't love is "This flag was presented to the legislature but was unpopular, and was replaced by Carson's design, which was much more popular." The sentence feels a bit clunky to me. Something to the effect of "This flag was presented to the legislature but, because it was less popular than Carson's design, was replaced." The specific rewording is up to you, of course.

 Done added just one word to your suggestion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Again, this looks solid to me. No complaints.

History

"An unofficial banner, consisting simply of the state seal on a blue background, was used in an unofficial capacity beginning that year." This sentence is redundant.

 Done right you are. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The wikilink for "Nil sine numine" doesn't seem to be working.

 Removed I just decided to take the link off, I couldn't get that to work properly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "This flag proved unpopular, as only one physical flag was ever produced and it was never flown publicly, but rather sat unused in a custodial closet within the Colorado State Capitol Building." also feels a bit clunky to me. Maybe it would do better as two sentences.

 Done reworked to make two sentences, with the break after "flown publicly". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"This final clarification is considered the birth of the flag that is in use today." I don't know about this line. I get that it supposed to be an idiom, but the phrasing seems very odd to me. I see in the source where the source's author uses this phrasing, so I understand why you included it. Still, I think it would be better to say something like "This final clarification brought about the flag in use today."

 Done reworded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Design and Symbolism

"The red letter "C" stands for three things: the name of the state, "Colorado", a Spanish word meaning "red"; the word "centennial", referring to Colorado's accession to statehood in 1876, the year of the United States' centennial; and "columbine", referring to the state flower." I think that the clause 'a Spanish word meaning "red"' probably doesn't belong here. I think that it throws the flow of the sentence off a little bit, and ultimately is not important information in regards to the flag specifically.

 Removed PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Everything else in this section, I think is very solid!

Reception and Other Uses

I like all of the information contained here, and it looks well researched. That said, please see the above comments for my thoughts on the organization of the section itself.

Thoughts After Initial Reading

Thanks for putting this article together! Just a little bit of work will, I think, put this at GA quality! Please do get back to me soon so that I know you've seen the review to this point; if I do not get a response within the next day or so, I'll go ahead and put the review on hold.

Vocem Virtutis, thanks for the review - I'll get to this in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm glad to be a part of it! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @PCN02WPS! It's been a few days, so I did just want to check in on everything. I have to travel several hours over this weekend to attend a funeral. If you finish the article within the next day or so (I'll leave it to you to decide how tall an order that may be), I should be able to run back through it before I leave; however, it takes much more time than that, I can't promise I'll be available until maybe Tuesday of next week. I don't mean to pressure you to finish, I just want to make sure you know what's happening on my end! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vocem Virtutis I appreciate you reaching out. I have found myself rather busy with another article that I've been working on pretty consistently over the past few days, so I haven't had all the time I've wanted to devote to this review. Adding in the fact that I will likely not be on Wikipedia much this weekend since I'll be moving back to school means that I will probably not be able to work on this consistently until Monday, so the wait on your end is no problem at all. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That's all good with me! Thanks for keeping me up to speed! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Concluding Thoughts and Concerns

References; Once these are corrected, I think that we should be ready for GA status.

There are some MOS issues with the way references are used throughout the article. For example, the second paragraph of the History section has four sentences in a row after which the same source is referenced. According to Wikipedia MOS, this is unnecessary. The reference should only be made after the information taken from a particular source ends. The article doesn't need to have the same source cited on consecutive sentences within the same paragraph, and this issue is present in all of the first three sections of the article. In fact, in the Design and Symbolism section, the same source is referenced two consecutive times within the same sentence.

I think that reading the accuracy section of the website suggests that the source for reference 3 is maybe not the best.

Reference 15 is another one that I'm hesitant to call reputable. I don't know that the article gives any information that you couldn't find somewhere with a bit better a source. Ultimately, you could even leave out the piece about Colorado being the ONLY state to use its unaltered flag in its highway markers if needed.

Vocem Virtutis, I have replaced ref 3 and taken out the "only state to use unaltered flag" bit that included ref 15. I don't think that those MOS issues are covered by the GA criteria based on what I read at WP:GACN but I can take care of them nonetheless when I get a little more time later today. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vocem Virtutis, I have taken care of the MOS issue you raised as well so I think this is ready for another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Giving it another look now!

For future reference, I suppose I don't technically have a place where the MOS specifically says there's something wrong with consecutively making in-line citations referencing the same source; however, at [[Wikipedia:CITEDENSE]], an example is provided that demonstrates the concern I was addressing. Even if it isn't specifically in contradiction of MOS, it is redundant and, thus, unnecessary. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)