Jump to content

Talk:Flag of Prince Edward Island/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review the article.

Review comments

[edit]

Lead section / infobox

[edit]
  • Red XN Almost none of the article’s History or Protocol sections, and none of the text about the flag’s symbolism, has been summarized within the lead (see MOS:INTRO for more information about what needs to be included in a lead section).
  • Link field (Field (heraldry)) here and in the infobox.
  • A minor point, but I would amend the province to ‘the province of Prince Edward Island’ (linked) for the sake of clarity, and to ensure PEI is linked in the lead.
  • Link royal warrant in the infobox.

1 History

[edit]
  • the United Kingdom should read ‘Great Britain’, the name of the country at this time.
  • It was consequently placed – ‘The island was consequently placed’ is clearer.
  • smaller trees – the source calls them saplings, which isn’t quite the same thing—I would use the term the source gives.
  • North America – ‘British North America’ is more accurate.
  • to Prince Edward Islanders – ‘to the Prince Edward Islanders’.
  • province's coat of arms is a duplicated link.
Understood. AM
  • Unlink Canada (twice); United States; London – see MOS:OL.
  • Red XN The last paragraph is imo too trivial to include in an encyclopaedia article.
Maybe, but it really is quite trivial. The survey took place over 20 years ago, and the results come a self-published source. I can't see the information is relevant here, despite what other reviewers may say. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to retain the paragraph, for the sake of uniformity with the other GAs and the fact that it does not contravene good article criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.1 Description

[edit]
  • Unlink fimbriation (dup link).
Understood. AM
  • itself is unnecessary and can be edited out.

2.2 Symbolism

[edit]
  • The Complete Flags of the World by DK is not an expert authority—it's an educational resource—so it’s not clear to me that the book's interpretation of the meaning of the three oak saplings should be included here.
  • Royal Arms of England - 'Royal arms of England' is correct (in both the text and the caption).
  • The arms shown in the image date only from 1198 to 1369, after which they were changed. Readers might assume the arms have always looked like this, so I would add the dates.
  • is surmised – by which person or organisation?
  • It's not clear. Ref 16 (from PEI provincial gov't) states that "while many consider the Red Oak to be the tree on the Provincial Coat-of-Arms, this has never been formally recognized." Would it be better if I changed the sentence to "is reportedly Quercus rubra"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would work well if you would kept surmised, and added a separate note that quotes the provisional government's position. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has not – ‘the species has not’ sounds better imo.

3 Protocol

[edit]
  • Office of Protocol, specifically the Chief of Protocol – why not simply ‘Chief of Protocol’?
  • (MPs) is not needed, as the abbreviation does not reappear.
  • Link casket.
  • Unlink sunrise; sunset (commonly understood words do not need to be linked).
  • it is to be flown – I would amend this to something like ‘the other flag is to be flown’ for the sake of clarity.

4 Notes

[edit]
  • Note A requires a citation.
[edit]
  • (Not GA) the link isn’t helpful enough to use imo.

On hold

[edit]
The last three points to be addressed are marked with a small red cross, otherwise all sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the lead appears to be last remaining one. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above issue has still not been addressed - the article will now need to be re-nominated if an editor wished it to be promoted, and any of the above issues dealt with as part of the next GAN. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]