Template:Did you know nominations/George Rex Flag
Appearance
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by MPJ-DK 14:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
George Rex Flag
[edit]- ... that the colony of New York's citizens unofficially adopted the George Rex Flag (pictured) to protest against freedom of religion granted to Catholics in Quebec?
- Reviewed: American Party of South Carolina
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - I would mention that the flag was an unofficial one in the hook.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Seems OK to me apart from the (minor) issue re the unofficial nature of the flag. This source does not explicitly state that it remained in use from 1775 to 1777, but I'm assuming that this is mentioned in one of the cited books. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article is over 2,000 characters long and only a day old. The sources check out and there appears to be no copyright violation, including the images. QPQ done. Readers might find it interesting that the flag was adopted at the start of the American Revolutionary War (I did), so perhaps the year can be included in the hook. Anyway, good to go! Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Xwejnusgozo, the George Rex Flag entry does not mention the year 1777, but it is mentioned further down under "The First Flag Resolution 1777". Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with review of Surtsicna. As per a decision in ANI, this nom requires two reviews. LavaBaron (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I am seeing a couple of issues here, particularly with the flag itself. The article contains four different images of the flag, one with the caption "The commonly accepted version of the George Rex flag", but the only apparent source for the details of the flag (first source) says that nobody is sure what the flag looked like and doesn't mention a "commonly accepted" version. Furthermore, even that source does not look to be of impeccable reliability. I would like to see better sourcing for the details of the flag itself, and certainly, I wouldn't want to see the image featured without better sourcing. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have reworded the description of the infobox and bear in mind that 2 of the 4 are of the back not the front. I have moved one of the book sources to directly source the flag detail inline. So I will ask @Surtsicna: if he can re-add the tick. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like an enthusiast's website, which does not necessarily invalidate it, but for such websites I expect to at least see a bibliography somewhere, but I couldn't locate one in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is one @Gatoclass:, it seems the fact there was oversight with several vexillologists makes it reliable as I'm sure @Surtsicna: would agree. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have found several books that mention the flag as having a red ensign or a red field ([1], [2], [3]), but none mentioning blue. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: I had just recently added a new source regaring the American Catholic Researches source that references it being blue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like an enthusiast's website, which does not necessarily invalidate it, but for such websites I expect to at least see a bibliography somewhere, but I couldn't locate one in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Everything looks fine now. Apologies for the "double jeopardy" on this nomination - I mistook the start of the reviewer's template as the header for a different nomination and didn't realize this one had already been reviewed, and by the time I realized my error, had already identified the concern stated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)