Talk:Flag of Kosovo/GA2

GA Review

I'll be reviewing this article according to the GA Criteria. I'll be back with my initial readthrough, followed by a more in depth review. If you have any questions or suggestions during this process please let me know. --Banime (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look and see if I could expand a bit, but honestly, there isn't enough information to shape this to my personal liking. I mostly still see news reports about the flag being new, Serbia hates it and it was used in a hacking attack 2 weeks ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

In my initial readthrough, I checked for the basic problems and quickfail criteria. The article contains reliable sources, the topic is not treated in an obviously non-neutral way, and there are no cleanup banners. I am a bit concerned with how recent it is, but it is not a "rapidly unfolding event without a definite endpoint" so I will continue the review. Also, I am worred that every project that it is a part of has rated it C-Class. Usually the articles can get to B-Class before being nominated, especially as I see this has been failed once before. However, I see no reason for a quick fail, and I will now go much more in depth in my review while keeping these concerns in mind. --Banime (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Depth Review

I'm back with my complete review. I will use the GA Criteria as a guideline for my review to help with making improvements and focusing on what needs fixing. I also made a few fixes myself, which you can see by checking the edit history.

Well Written

I believe that the introduction is too detailed. The introduction is just as big as the other sections. Much of the information there can be explained in the body of the article. The introduction should just be a short introduction that quickly covers the important aspects of the flag. I don't think the details about contests and what each individual thing stands for are appropriate. Also theres no need to explain about the details of the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the introduction either. Move this information down to be expanded upon in the body, and have the introduction just hit the high points. Also, see WP:LEAD for more tips on making this a good lead section as its often the hardest part of the article.

In the proposals and final choice section: it reads pretty poorly. The section discusses the choice of flag and then goes on to compare other flags that also have the outline of the country on it. You list two then don't even list the Bosnia one from the introduction. Is this information even notable really? If it is I don't think it belongs in the section of the final choice of the flag.

Overall the sections are pretty unorganized feeling. Perhaps after moving more information around from the introduction and restructuring the article it can read better and more clearly and stay more coherent.

The pictures of the flags: earlier in the article it said how Black and Red flags were discouraged yet there are two examples of black and red flags. Are these notable in any way? Perhaps you can at least clear this up. Maybe I was just confused by something but it seemed odd. How notable are the majority of failed flag choices anyway? Wouldn't maybe the top 2 or 3 designs that were fought over have notability at most?
- All the sources that I have found told me that these three flags were pushed for to become the national flag. I have no clue about the red and black flags being part of the official contest, but all I know it was part of the final three. I also began to rearrange the articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, that's still odd though, haha. --Banime (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiability

In the other proposals section: the flag of Dardania is shown and explained, even though it says it was never very popular. You do say it was used on the coffin of Rugova however, could you find or add more sources explaining the relevance of this flag? Right now it just seems to be something on the side, not used often at all, not recognized, and therefore not notable.
- This was a defacto flag of Kosovo during his reign. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, as long as it is clarified. --Banime (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a source actually required for this statement: It shows six white stars in an arc above a golden map of Kosovo on a blue field.[6] It seems pretty self evident. However, more sources never hurt I guess unless it seriously impairs the article's readability.

Broad in its coverage

This article is broad enough for a very short lived flag in its coverage. It details the selection process and reasons for selection and the details of the flag. I'd like to see a section on when/where the flag is used commonly and what it represents, but I'm thinking that kind of information doesn't exist.
- The meaning is at Flag_of_Kosovo#Design_and_use and there is a federal law that regulates the use of the flag, and I did mention and link the law in the text. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks --Banime (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The article is NPOV.

Stable

No vandalism concerns or back and forth edit warring, topic is old enough to not have rapidly emerging information.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

The images are used well and are all public domain or have been released under a free license.

Decision

Overall the article concerns me, mostly because of the reasons listed above. The introduction and expansion of the other sections should be a top priority, as well as finding out as much information as possible to expand this article. The article is definitely not bad, but I do not feel that it meets GA criteria, and frankly I'm slightly concerned that it won't ever (at least not for several years once the flag has enough history). I will put this article "on hold" for now, and if I see drastic improvement over a short time then I will reevaluate. Otherwise, I will be happy to work with the nominator to get this article ready for a third nomination after I fail it. Good work to everyone involved nonetheless! Thanks for the effort. --Banime (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can with this article, but either not enough new information is coming out or other flags regarding Kosovo is sourced to shady places. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done and you've improved the article more than I expected. Good work. I'll read through the article and see what else needs work, if anything. --Banime (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Decision - Pass

I've read through this article a final time and have come to a decision of passing the article to GA status based on the GA Criteria. The article has been vastly improved and all of my previous concerns have been met. The article also reads a lot better now and is very well sourced.

To continue improving this article for FA status be sure to check out GA vs FA criteria. Continue improving the prose of the article, as that is often very difficult and one of the main reasons FAs get failed. Keep up all the hard work that has been done so far on this article and I'm sure one day it can reach FA. For some tips and pointers on prose you can also check out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a for example, or a number of other good guides on wikipedia.

Finally, I would like to congratulate all editors on this good article. I'd like to personally thank Zscout370 for his hard work in addressing all of my concerns. I'd also like to take the time to encourage all involved in this project to check and see if there are other GA nominations that you can review in order to help out. --Banime (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I expect several years need to go by before this might even be close to FA ready. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, haha. Good work though. --Banime (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]