Talk:Flag of São Tomé and Príncipe/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

Nominator: Yue (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 10:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Won't mind reviewing this article, looks good! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

My review:

• The source (2) states that the triangle means equality, you should probably include that.
• "following a successful settlement attempt on São" how did they settle there?
• I don't think the banner "Flag of convenience" is neccessary, more-so "Benefits"?
• In the link to page 185 from source 11, the page is white (only the supposed page, not the mechanics).
• I see additional sources like here and here.

Thats my review, have a good day! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: Howdy, there! Thanks for doing this review.

• Y Triangle explanation added.
• Y Adjusted the sentence so the reason for earlier failures is clear. I don't think there is really much more to say about the first settlement that is within the scope of this article.
• I titled the section "Flag of convenience" because the entire section is just about the flag's use as a flag of convenience. Although the term can be used pejoratively, it is the commonly used term for the business practice. Also, because the practice is frowned-upon and puts flags on international blacklists, I don't think it's a good idea to call it a "benefit" without surrounding contextual descriptors, which would be too much for a heading.
•  Fixed the link, I think. I changed the URL to this one, hopefully it works now?
• I generally stay away from WorldAtlas and CRW Flags because they are self-described "passion projects" (self-published works) of a few editors. The former was run by one person before 2016 and, although it has been acquired by Reunion Technology Inc. since, their team of editors often copy straight from Wikipedia, so there are some possible WP:CIRCULAR issues there. CRW Flags also has looser sourcing standards than Wikipedia (e.g. extrapolating from weak photographic evidence), which is why I steer away from that site.

Yue🌙 18:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comment

I had a look at this article a few days ago and made three notes:

• The flag's colours and symbols are shared by the flags initially adopted by two other former Portuguese colonies, Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau. The point on symbolism being shared seems hard to believe given sources differ on the specific meanings and the CIA Factbook says yellow represents cocoa.
• When the article says the first flag of the Movement for the Liberation of São Tomé and Príncipe (MLSTP), I was unsure if "party" should be added after the brackets. If it was purely a movement it shouldn't, but if the flag was representing MLSTP as a political party it should.
• The Flag of Convenience information should use MOS:DATED given the latest source is 15 years old.

Can be addressed if you or Nuggeteer thinks they should be.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave:

• Oops, I meant the shapes are shared not the symbolism, so "symbols" can just be changed to "stars" as that was the point of the source given.
• We can add "party" for clarity. Timeline-wise, the movement's flag came before the national flag and before the movement became a political party. Yue🌙 19:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Let me find a more up-to-date source.

Yue🌙 19:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

In regard to the third point, I adjusted the text like so. The only fact that is no longer true is that the sale is now regulated by the government (stpregistry.com). Yue🌙 19:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good changes all around. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yue Everything looks okay! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

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.