Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand White Ensign/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: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

[edit]
Wow, I'd have thought that all national flags would have been sorted long ago! Added Template:PD-US-expired, which I think is appropriate (as the flag was designed in 1869) - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No duplicated links

History

[edit]
Done
Done
Done
Done
  • Briefly mention why the signing of the treaty resulted in a flag change?
Tried to explain this a little, let me know what you think
Done
  • "William Campbell Walker" who?
Described as "Minister of EducatioN"
  • A little confused here. You state that there had not been consideration of the White Ensign becoming the national flag in 1867 like a different flag had been chosen instead, but only speak in the article about the governmental Blue Ensign that unintentionally became the national flag. I think your meaning could be cleared up and clarified in these sentences to ensure the correct message is coming across, because I'm honestly not sure what it's meant to be!
Agreed, I've gone back to the source and had a go a rewriting this. I mention it because it is the earliest description of a White Ensign relating to NZ. It appears that they considered adopting it as a national flag at some point before 1900, but rejected it because of opposition from the RN.
Done
  • "Unofficial New Zealand naval units" can you give a little more detail as to what these units were/where they came from?
Added some detail here
  • I think you could do a better job of signposting that paragraph two is turning from civilian flag use to military flags - I was a little confused as to the chronology of this before realising the change
Does the rewording of the first sentence help set the scene, or does it need further work?
  • "in part" you're teasing me! What was the other part of the reason?
Did a bit of digging. It was apparently partly to avoid embarrassment to the British government but also an Australian desire for their vessels to be more distinctive.
  • "New Zealand fleet" fleet or navy?
Just trimmed this bit off as I mention RNZN earlier in the sentence
  • "the development of the RNZN." what form of development? Sounds important, should be elaborated on
Not sure, I guess because it marked the navy stepping out from under the shadow of the RN. The source (The RNZN Museum), just says "This is seen as an important milestone in the development of Royal New Zealand Navy". I'll see if I can find any detail in other sources
No luck unfortunately. Our article on the RNZN has "Until the 1960s, the RNZN had, in common with other Dominion navies, flown the White Ensign as a common ensign. After 1945, the foreign policies of the now-independent states had become more distinctive. There was a growing wish and a need for separate identities, particularly if one Dominion was engaged in hostilities where another was not. Thus, in 1968, the RNZN adopted its own ensign, which retained the Union Flag in a top quarter but replaces the St George's Cross with the Southern Cross constellation that is displayed on the national flag." which seems reasonable but has no source and I could not find similar anywhere online except Wikipedia mirrors
  • "A design based on..." suggest describing the design as well as linking to it
Is this in relation to the Blue Ensign? If so, think I've covered this with an earlier change.

Description

[edit]
  • The infobox states that the Southern Cross is "in lieu of the St George Cross", but this is not specifically mentioned or referenced in the main text
Good point. I've rewritten the description to describe the flag as it is, without reference to the White Ensign.

Use

[edit]
  • "ships of the New Zealand Naval Forces" does this mean units other than the RNZN? If so you should note what they are, and if not I don't see why this shouldn't just say RNZN
It was from the wording of the regulations, presumably a hangover from the old name but it means RNZN so changed
  • "naval establishments"
Changed
  • If possible I think it would be useful to note where the ensign is worn on ships
I couldn't find where exactly it is worn on naval vessels at sea (possibly any suitable point), but it is flown at the stern when alongside so added that. Also regulations that it must be worn in combat.
  • "flag officers of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron" what exactly are "flag officers" in this instance?
Now defined
  • Note that the RNZYS has another, separate, ensign as well?
Now mentioned
Done
  • "with more square proportions" considering you give the exact proportions of the White Ensign I think it would be good to do the same for the colour
Hmm, I know the RN Queen's Colour is 24x36 but can't find a reference for the RNZN one. I found a little more detail on the hisotry of the Queen's COlour which I have added
  • Awkward final sentence as its own paragraph. Suggest merging it with another paragraph, but also question its purpose at all; the merchant ensign is not actually related to the White Ensign in any way but visual similarity, is it?
Yes, I think it is more trivia than anything. Removed
As above, removed
  • I had vaguely expected there to be mention of when the flag is not flown or is flown at half mast?
I had a look but couldn't find any regulations or even a picture of the flag at half mast. I know the RN and RAN white ensigns are flown at half mast so I would expect that the RNZN one is also.

References

[edit]
  • References look good. Majority are government sources - if there are other non-governmental flag sources that say the same I wouldn't think it too much to add them in repetition of the governmental sources.
Suprisingly few mentions of the NZ White Ensign outside of government sources, unfortunately!
  • Reference #5 is unnecessarily repeated in the description section
Think this was from its DYK appearance. They have a stupid rule that the hook fact must be cited directly after the sentence, even if this means duplication. Now removed

@Dumelow: That's all I have for now, will await your responses. My apologies that this has taken so long to complete! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I don't think it took that long and you have made some great suggestions. I've not been able to solve everything but I think I have now answered every point raised. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just a few queries remaining:
  • Italics for the lede de facto?
I've always thought of it as sufficiently assimilated into English. As examples our article doesn't italicise it and this OUP journal style guide specifically lists it among the Latin phrases that should not be italicised.
  • "commissioned RNZN vessels" needs either a link or explanation for the concept. Suggest Ship commissioning (also needs mention in main text that the ships flying it are only the commissioned ones)
Good point. I added the link in the lead and in "Use", where I also changed "ships" to "vessels" (if they had submarines they'd use it)
  • "It is also flown..." give the date for this, right now it reads like it's permanently flown there
Good point, moved the date to the front
Done (there's a handy redirect from British resident
  • "by virtue of discovery" does this mean by virtue of their discovery of New Zealand or something else?
I've linked Discovery doctrine. They claimed the north island as a cession through the Treaty and the South Island, which was considered to be uncivilised, by discovery (though Tasman beat Cook by more than 100 years)
  • "Following the declaration the British Union Flag the flag of New Zealand..." something is missing in this sentence
Yes, I had properly mangled that. Hopefully it is now fixed
  • "New Zealand became a crown colony in 1841." what does this mean for the flags?
Nothing, it was previously part of New South Wales but they also used the same flags. Probably not important, removed
  • "officially as as"
Trimmed one
Done
  • "as is usually worn"?
Yep, done
  • "These unofficial vessels did not wear a White Ensign" an explanation why would be useful
Stated they were not commissioned and that they wore a Union Flag instead
  • "there was apparently" is "apparently" necessary here? A little chatty
No, removed
  • "on active service during the..." suggest providing the dates of the conflicts
Good idea, done
  • "It's entry" > "Its entry"
Doh, fixed
  • Remove first instance of saying that Britain was not in the war; overly repetitive and the second works better imo
Yep, you're right. Done
  • "New Zealand also joined the war in 1964" also makes it seem like Australia had joined in '64 as well
Done
  • "The adoption of a distinctive white ensign seems to have inspired" > "It has been suggested that the adoption of a distinctive white ensign inspired..." or a different version; again I believe "seems" to be a little too chatty, although I see the source does use the word
Reworded, I named the RNZN museum as the source as the next question I ask when I read "suggested" is always "who by?"
Done
  • Lots of wikilinks here, but I think linking Governor-General is necessary; it's not that widely understood as a position
Done
Delinked the second one
  • "The New Zealand Defence Force Manual of Armed Forces Law..." why not just say that it's required?! I don't think the name is that useful to readers
Done
  • "all RNZN vessels on operations" specifically just when on operations? I was under the impression it was whenever they're under commission
Me too, the manual only states: "New Zealand naval ships are to conduct all operations under the New Zealand White Ensign unless specifically authorised to do otherwise by CDF". But it's in a section on false flag operations so I think it's wording is tailored to that. I've removed "on operations" and "at the point that combat is initiated" bits from the article.
Done
Done
  • "Examination Service flag" no link so perhaps a note saying what the flag is?
Not sure. Looking deeper the Examination Service disbanded in 1944 so it probably doesn't matter. I've removed the mention of their flag and noted that no examination vessels have been operated since 1944
  • "the right to wear the White Ensign" perhaps specify that it's their yachts that wear the ensign...don't want anyone trying to stick a flag on them!
Clarified, that it's vessels skippered by them.
Weird, must have lost it somewhere along the way. Now re-added to the first sentence of the last paragraph.
@Dumelow: Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Pickersgill-Cunliffe, think I've checked everything - Dumelow (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with your edits and believe that this article satisfies the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_White_Ensign/GA1&oldid=1065088076"