Talk:Flag of Grenada/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 08:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this article. I'll try to give comments sometime tomorrow (so in the next 24 hours – it's late where I am) Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Is [[Nutmeg] the seed/spice what the use of nutmeg here is in reference to? Would link if so. (Or is it some specialized terminology?) – after reading further, yes, definitely link here

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely "Grenada" can be linked in the lead? :) (Would link the UK as well)

• I intentionally chose not to link UK per MOS:OVERLINK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, would still like Grenada for sure Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "Sovereignty over Grenada" seems out of place since if it was changing hands between countries it wasn't ever "sovereign", right? Maybe "ownership" or "possession" would be more appropriate

• Actually, I think the term "ownership" (even "possession" to a lesser extent) would be inappropriate, since countries control (not "own") a parcel of land. In fact, the Handover of Hong Kong and Macau are formally referred to as the "transfer of sovereignty". —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could Britain be linked to Kingdom of Great Britain and France to Kingdom of France

• Sure – done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "It eventually became a crown colony within the latter's colonial empire in 1877" may sound better as "Eventually in 1877 it became a crown colony..." either way works but my initial reaction is that the second one flows better

• My personal preference has been to put the subject closer to the beginning and avoid starting a sentence with the year, since that might come across as WP:PROSELINE. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was a member state of this political union until 1962" may be better as "and remained a member state until 1962" the "political union" part seems redundant

• You're right – removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Negotiations on independence --> Negotiations for independence ?

• Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "was ultimately selected" makes me think that the Grenada took submissions rather than commissioning a specific person, can this perhaps be clarified?

• I couldn't find in any sources (both from ones used in the article and ones that I haven't used) that say there was a competition. The only place that does mention it is the unsourced lead of the Anthony C. George article. But none of the sources say that it was a commissioning either. I've reworded it so that it doesn't infer either scenario (to match the wording of [www.gov.gd/national-symbols-grenada#flag ref 5 (government source)]. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link to Independence Day (Grenada) somewhere in this section

• Don't know where it would make an appropriate pipelink, because the article is more about the holiday itself rather than the event (e.g. Independence of Brazil, Independence of Jamaica, Independence of Croatia, etc. for articles about the independence of other countries and not the national holiday). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design

• symbolise the country's administrative divisions -> symbolise the country's six administrative divisions ? Just for clarity about what the connection is.

• Added. Also shifted the pipelink (hope that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, the subsection of "Symbolism" under "Design" seems unnecessary, since there's only one section. I think the design section implies it will discuss the symbolism and the whole thing would be better place under "Design" alone

• You're right – removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol

• "Advice regarding" is it really optional? Advice makes it sound like it is, perhaps "guidelines" is more appropriate

• If it has not been codified into law (as far as I know, it hasn't), then it is indeed optional. Just like it is here in Canada, where there are rules and do's and don'ts listed on government websites, but nothing enforceable in law. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "ought to be" doesn't sound very encyclopedic and sounds more like a suggestion when it seems to be something rather important, would change to something else here. It's used twice anyways, so at the very least one should be changed to avoid repetition, but I would recommend changing both

• As above, it is a suggestion. And I worded it this way to avoid close paraphrasing and to avoid repetition of "should/should not" (which features six times in the section, three times as many as "ought to be"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Over all the research is there and the prose is decent – the fact that my comments are on minor things speaks for itself Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll take a closer look at the refs and images later, but for now I'm putting this on hold. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My concerns have been appropriately addressed, thank you. I went through the sources as well and everything else looked good there. The last two things I would say are that the "Sovereignty over" line I still find somewhat odd, so if you can come up with a better way to phrase that it might be better (your reasonings against my specific suggestions there made sense though). Also, when I was talking about linking Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of France I meant in the "between the French and the British" line. Either way, these issues are not outstanding enough to prevent a pass. Good work here and I appreciate your work on this national symbol – and looking at your userpage it looks like many others as well! Passing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]