Jump to content

Talk:Flag of Grenada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Flag of Grenada
Flag of Grenada

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • (for one hook) — The article has been expanded and follows policy. However, only the main one meets the criteria for sources. ALT1 mentions that the center star is for the capital, but I cannot find a reference to this in the CIA World Factbook link, and I cannot verify the DK source. ALT2 connects the flag's imagery to the country's nicknames, but this connection is not directly established in either the Encyclopedia Britannica or BBC links, and I cannot verify with DK. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RunningTiger123: Thanks for the review! For ALT1 – "the seven stars stand for the seven administrative divisions, with the central star denoting the capital, St. George's" (CIA World Factbook, very bottom of the "Government" tab) and "The yellow star on a red disc stands for the Borough of St. George, Grenada's capital, and the other six stars for the remaining six parishes." (DK, under "Symbolism of the Flag" subheading)
For ALT2 – "The flag used prior to independence in 1967 also featured a nutmeg, since Grenada is a major world supplier of this commodity, and is known as the "Spice Island." (DK)
I hope you'll be able to give a green tick for the aforementioned 2 hooks, or at least the second green tick (i.e. {{subst:DYKtickAGF}}), which is to be used if the "Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline hook reference, or reference behind a paywall accepted in good faith". —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

[edit]

Bloom6132, why is Negotiations on independence commenced after the Grenada United Labour Party emerged victorious in the election in August 1967 better than Negotiations on independence commenced after the Grenada United Labour Party won the election in August 1967? What extra meaning is conveyed by the extra five syllables? --84.64.247.8 (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP policy that says shorter is better. Purely subjective. You think it's better – I disagree. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand that you disagree. I was asking why you disagree. Why is the longer version better? --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal preference. Don't really need a reason for it to be valid. And since I wrote the bulk of the article, and since I am trying to take it to good article status, I'll change it if the reviewer says otherwise. Until then … —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it's a case of ownership. That makes sense. As a general rule when writing, we try to use the fewest, simplest words to carry the information necessary for an encyclopedia article. It's not like a high school essay where you are trying to boost the word count. --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's actually a case of you not liking my edits. The general rule you cite is … unusual, to put mildly. Also, it's quite presumptuous to think I'm in high school. Lastly, stop stalking the other articles I edit. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you made any contributions to this article that are necessary to bring it to good article status? Or are you planning to bicker on minutiae that is meaningless at the end of the day? This is a case of "put up or shut up". —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were in high school. But knowing a little about good writing is quite important when you are writing, wouldn't you say? Have a think about what I said. --84.64.247.8 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that was enough time for you. Here is an interesting piece which might help you to think about it if you never have. And thank you for "There's no WP policy that says shorter is better.", which was one of the funniest things I've read in a while. There's no WP policy that says words shouldn't be misspelled either, or that subjects should agree with verbs. It's more of a general rule when writing. I mentioned high school; a good high school English course should definitely have mentioned this. Shorter is better, as long as the same meaning is conveyed. Unless there is a good reason that you are able to explain (and "because I like it" isn't a good reason), the shorter version is preferred. I hope that makes sense. --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"There's no WP policy that says words shouldn't be misspelled." See WP:COMPETENCE. There's only one party here willfully ignoring policy and guidelines (e.g. WP:Consensus) to suit their own purposes. There's Flag of Manitoba (passed in May), Flag of New Brunswick and Flag of the Solomon Islands (both passed in 2017), good articles passed by 3 different reviewers. That's the established consensus on how a quality flag article should be formatted. Are you trying to say you know better than all of us? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this on WP:3O. Of the two options, I think the more concise "won the election" is preferable. Yilloslime (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case of tomato/tomato, surely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too feel that the shorter wording is - very slightly - better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Richard Keatinge and User:Yilloslime. Generally shorter is better, as long as the same meaning is conveyed. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, we could put in all sorts of explanations about the type of election it was, percentage turnout etc. But we wouldn't on this article which is about a flag. The date is fine, with a wikilink so the interested can investigate further. That's how these here online encyclopedias are supposed to work. I think there's a consensus here, and if User:Bloom6132 can't spare the time to argue for his wordy version here, I wish he would refrain from lengthening this. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice straw man argument there – I never advocated including election type, percentage, turnout, etc. However, I refuse to sacrifice accuracy for what you see as "shorter is better" (which is just a cheap excuse to insert inaccurate information into an article). Your "wish" that I "would refrain from lengthening this" is quite telling – while you accuse me of such, it is indeed you who has WP:OWN issues. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sacrifice accuracy? Inaccurate information? Do tell. One of your edit summaries read "Parties don’t “win” an election in the Westminster system. Party with the most seats forms gov’t." Now, I think that will be news to Boris Johnson, who thinks he and his party "won" the UK election in 2019. We could by your logic (expressed in your edit summary) say on the article about a US president "Individuals don’t “win” an election in the US system. Candidate with the most electoral college votes becomes president". Parties do win an election when they form a government. That's what winning an election consists of. But we don't go into any of this, because this is an article about a flag, not an election. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More piss-poor excuses. Why am I not surprised? It's apparent that you still haven't read up on WP:COMPETENCE. I'm not seeing any here with your insistence on being inaccurate. All because you want to get 100% of your preferred wording 100% of the time. Get a grip. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't inaccurate. And you are starting to sound like a loony. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It isn't inaccurate" – is that your best comeback? Prove it. Also, a reminder that third opinions are "neither mandatory nor binding". So I'm actually not required to abide by any comments made here – it's not binding consensus. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is the Guardian mistaken when they say "Boris Johnson leads Tories to historic general election win"? The Irish Times? CNBC? Time? The core of your misunderstanding is threefold. Firstly, it's only your theory that "Parties don’t “win” an election in the Westminster system. Party with the most seats forms gov’t." In the real world, respectable sources frequently refer to winning elections in a parliamentary system, as shown. Secondly, it's only your contention that this is vital to note on an article about a flag. It isn't. Details about the election and how it was decided belong on the election page, not here. Thirdly, you seem to have a very cockeyed idea of what consensus means on Wikipedia. There are three editors who reckon the proposed shorter wording is best, and one who is arguing that it needs to be made even longer. You don't have consensus. Third opinions are "neither mandatory nor binding", but consensus is very much a guiding principle and yes you do have to abide by it. It really isn't that important in this single instance, but it worries me if you are right that there are a bunch of articles this badly written passing peer review, and it worries me that you are running around wasting people's time with your highly ideosynchratic ideas about elections and consensus. Again, please do have a think about it. You're making yourself look increasingly silly with the lengths you are going to prevent improvement of the prose here. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is very minor, and I hope settled. It's time to invoke WP:DEADHORSE. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is minor, but I fear it is not settled, and there are some interesting misunderstandings embodied in the position of the single editor who thinks that "more is better" and that consensus applies to others but not to him. It would be nice even to think User:Bloom6132 has learned something from this exchange. I wonder if he has? --84.64.236.222 (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "more is better". I believe accuracy is better – and you certainly don't. And you clearly don't get it: third opinions ≠ consensus. Canvassing two other users [1][2] in the hope that they will take your side ≠ consensus. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought not. Oh well, never mind. Happy editing. I hope your writing skills and people skills improve, and you'll be a far better editor. See you around. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

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]

Prose

[edit]
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
  • Surely "Grenada" can be linked in the lead? :) (Would link the UK as well)
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
  • "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
  • "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
  • Negotiations on independence --> Negotiations for independence ?
  • "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]

Design

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

Protocol

  • "Advice regarding" is it really optional? Advice makes it sound like it is, perhaps "guidelines" is more appropriate
  • "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
@Aza24: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]
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]

English A

[edit]

Hy 2800:3C0:2120:2F9:F5D3:E768:9F3E:2AD7 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Grenada&oldid=1202038597"