Talk:Flag of Cimișlia

Flag of Cimișlia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 17, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Heraldry and vexillology

Flag of Cimișlia is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Moldova Low‑importance

	Moldova portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Cimișlia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 05:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines – not applicable.
GACR#2c. No original research.
GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
GACR#5. Stable.
GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I'll be using the checklist above to register progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for starting the review! Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

This is bound to be a short article because of its limited scope but I would say the coverage is as broad as possible and entirely within scope. It has been very well researched with striking images and it checks all of the criteria above without any problems. It's well written, fully and reliably sourced, and unquestionably a good article. I'm promoting it to GA status. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for your review! Super Ψ Dro 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]