Jump to content

Talk:Coat of arms of Sevastopol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Toreightyone (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

plus Added, Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that Sevastopol had no official coat of arms from 1917 until 1969, but two official coats of arms from 1993 until 2000? – Levivich 01:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me! Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toreightyone: I have been reading this article, thinking about reviewing the nomination. One thing strikes me as a potential issue with NPOV. The article is titled "Coat of arms of Sevastopol", and the info box is headed "Coat of arms of Sevastopol". It shows the Soviet era design, with two versions of it. The royal coat of arms is shown below in the History section. I think it would be more neutral to have the article title and, especially, the info box header as "Coats of arms of Sevastopol", showing both the Soviet era design and the royal coat of arms (if that's possible for a coat of arms info box - otherwise, two info boxes). The versions could be placed below in suitable sections. Also, the info box should show the date that the Soviet era design was disallowed, as well as the date it was approved. And in the article, I think "current design" should be avoided, and "Soviet era design" and "royal coat of arms" or "royal design" used instead. I'd also suggest not starting with Design and Usage sections, but rather with History, describing within that the design and usages of the royal coat of arms, then the Soviet era coat of arms, then the post-annexation controversy. This is not something I know anything about (coats of arms, or Crimean history), but I offer these suggestions that I think would make the article more neutral. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RebeccaGreen, sorry for the late response. I hear what you're saying but I don't think it would be 100% accurate to give equal weight to the two coat of arms since the Soviet-era one is widely used, and is the one set by a decree by Dmitry Ovsyannikov. I attempted to put the two coat of arms side by side in one infobox but it doesn't quite work. I can definitely reword it and make another infobox for the royal one and see how that looks. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Toreightyone, just wondering if you have thought more about this? I have thought about it and read the article again, and I now think the title is fine as it is.
  • I would still recommend placing the current 'Design' and 'Usage' sections under '20th century'
  • and avoid using "current design". I have just noticed too, that in the info box for the Soviet design, it says "Adopted April 21, 2000". However, the text says "On February 12, 1969, city council approved a new design containing the Gold Star medal and a silhoutette of the Monument to the Sunken Ships." Wouldn't that be a more accurate date for when it was first adopted? And it would be good to include the date at which it was formally struck down, too, as I mentioned above.  Done
  • I have also had a look at the Russian Wikipedia version of this article (through Google Translate), and I notice that, for the post-annexation coat of arms, as well as adding the Gold Star medal on the ribbon below the escutcheon, the suggested coat of arms omitted the canton with the coat of arms of the Taurida Governorate. And that omission, as well as the addition of the Gold Star medal, were in the bill presented in February 2018, so it wasn't exactly "the monarchical version chosen in 1893" as the article currently states, but an adapted version of that design. (There is an image of that design in the Russian WP article, but I presume you haven't included it as it has never been approved or used?)  Done
  • The Russian Wikipedia article also says "On July 20, 2018, deputies of the Legislative Assembly at an extraordinary meeting did not support the bills of the Governor of Sevastopol on the symbols of the city, suggesting confirmation of the existing symbols of the city (Soviet coat of arms and flag from 2000)." That does not seem to fit with this article - is the Russian one incorrect? Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RebeccaGreen, I remember seeing variations during my research without the Taurida coat of arms. I fixed that portion of the article, but I didn't see any examples on commons. As for the last bullet, the paragraph seems to confirm what is in the Russian Wikipedia, "The Legislative Assembly rejected the bill with ten votes in favour (one away from the eleven minimum); chairwoman Altabaeva cited the heraldic council's conclusions for the rejection and insisted the decision should be decided via referendum". Would it make more sense to clarify stating that the decision had reverted to the previous coat of arms? Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toreightyone, thanks, yes, I realise that I was misunderstanding what the Russian Wikipedia article said. I've just looked at the source for the July 20 meeting, and what is in this article is fine (I've just added the date, and clarified that eleven was the minimum needed to pass). The image of the adapted monarchical design that's shown in the Russian Wikipedia article seems to be in copyright, so I guess their requirements are rather different from on English Wikipedia. I'll have another read through the article tomorrow. What do you think about placing the current 'Design' and 'Usage' sections under '20th century'? Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RebeccaGreen, I moved the design and usage to the 20th century section. After looking at other coat of arms articles, there doesn't seem to be a consensus between whether the design/usage should be before or after the history. For example, Coat of arms of the Netherlands and Coat of arms of Poland has it before the history, while Arms of Canada and Coat of arms of Greece has it after the history — so I don't think anyone would mind the change. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: All issues are now resolved, and ALT2 is approved.
Toreightyone, a minor point - one source [1] gives the date 21 July 1893 for the royal design, another [2] gives 21 June 1893. I see you have July in the article - were you able to confirm it from other sources? I didn't check through all of them myself. If it's not certain, maybe add a footnote that sources differ on the month? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Coat of arms of Sevastopol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 02:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. First GA review for me, quite exciting. Jordano53 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very nice article! A few minor tweaks and I think it should be good to go.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Place link at first instance of Sevastopol City Council in lead
  • "From July 21, 1893 until the October Revolution in 1917..." + "...has been struck down by the Legislative Assembly on July 3, 2019 due to the criticisms..."
    A comma needs to be added after the years.
  • "...alongside the 2018 Russian presidential election, however was later cancelled due to time constraints."
    A pronoun should go in between "however" and "was".
  • As this topic concerns Russia, date formats should be "dd-mm-yyyy".
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Very well sourced. Passes Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
    Might be beneficial to caption the coat of arms in the "19th century" section. Not very clear what it refers to when reading the article.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Thanks Jordano53 for the review and I am glad you like the article; I have made the necessary changes. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toreightyone: Great! I made two slight changes to the article if that is okay with you. Otherwise, this article should be good to go and I have passed it. Jordano53 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Sevastopol&oldid=1206729454"