Talk:Flag of New Brunswick/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 04:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mention where New Brunswick is in lead. I don’t think most people outside North America know where NB is~~

~~Stipulated in the second sentence that it is a "the flag of the Canadian province". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

“In New Brunswick, the parliamentary opposition had plans to bring table a motion” : please name who the “parliamentary opposition” was? E.g. is there a party or a politician?

Specified that it was a party. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name the party too please?

Sorry, I'm unable to do that. It's not included in the sources (the only ones I found which talked about the opposition's plan). Doing so anyways would violate WP:VERIFY. And finding another source that states which party was in opposition at the time would violate WP:SYNTH. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, I don’t think “to bring table” is a well-known phrase? Please rephrase.~~

~~Fixed. Sorry, I meant "to table a motion" (without the "bring"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~“ This would have had particularly destructive ramifications given the province's unique history”: Maybe the wording “destructive” is a bit dramatic? Maybe “divisive” or “alienating”?~~

I purposely used "destructive", because I use both “divisive” and “alienating” in the very next paragraph. I like to avoid repetition, so I've changed it to "detrimental" – hope that's alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“given the province's unique history” is unclear to reader unfamiliar with NB history. I know it’s explained by the following sentences, but it’s a long detour before the reader will find out why it’s divisive. How about mentioning “given the province's history of conflict between its English-speaking and Acadian (French-speaking) population” right in the beginning? Or in your own word if you feel this is too long/awkward.

It's not awkward – it just doesn't thoroughly explain the differences. The conflict goes far beyond language (which is later delved into in the final sentence). However, to address your concern, I've changed it to "the province's unique history of both French and British settlement" as a nice lead into the finer details. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“In a 2001 survey conducted by the North American Vexillological Association”: describe the method of the survey? There’s a big difference between properly-sampled survey and, say, an online survey

Specified that it was an online survey. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“According to Whitney Smith”: describe who Smith is in this first mention. Would “Canadian vexillologist Whitney Smith” be correct?

I already mentioned (and wikilinked) him in the third paragraph of the "History" section ("… in what was described as "a striking new artistic interpretation" by vexillologist Whitney Smith."). Also, he's not Canadian. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. Sorry didn't realize that. HaEr48 (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to find an image of the flag flying, or appearing somewhere in the real world?

The version before expansion included this image, which I deleted from the article because it seems repetitive to have two images of the same thing. Not to mention that the article is already well-illustrated now. However, I've added it back, and if you think it is necessary for illustrative purposes I'd be more than happy to keep it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, interesting article, well organized and referenced. It's concise but apppropriately covered the flag's history, design, and meaning. No copyvio or WP:OR found. Neutral and stable. Well-written and illustrated by images (subject to comments above - mostly minor). HaEr48 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thank you for your review. I've addressed all your comments above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: Thanks for your responses. I have one minor comment left about naming the opposition party. Also, for the flag flying image, from the Commons category of the image you re-added, I found a photo of NB flag flying alongside the Canadian one. I hope that's better for variation? HaEr48 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: I've responded to your most recent comment. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: I don't think naming the opposition party would be violating WP:SYNTH. It wouldn't require you to reach a new conclusion by original research, you would be merely juxtaposing two different infos, which I don't think is forbidden. But I wouldn't block the GA process on this minor request. It's a fine article and you've addressed my other comments. I went over the article once again, and found this clause: "they sought to have modified as a provincial flag". I think "have modified as" doesn't make sense in a sentence, could you correct it? Sorry missed this in the initial review.HaEr48 (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Addressed both the comment above ("to have it modified") as well as your earlier comment. You're right about SYNTH – I was also concerned because there weren't many sources detailing which provincial party was in opposition at the time (even though this list gives me the answer, albeit unsourced). Thanks very much for the review; it was a pleasure working with you! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: Thank you for the updates! I'm passing the GA review. Good work, and happy Canada Day in advance! HaEr48 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.