Wikipedia:Featured article review/Flag of Armenia/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [1].

Flag of Armenia

Notified: Crzycheetah, Aivazovsky, Zscout370, WP Armenia, WP Heraldry and vexillology, noticed in late March

Review section

This early 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since and needs work to meet the modern FA standards. There is uncited text in places, a few spot with MOS:SANDWICH issues, some of the sources (such as Flags of the World and Vexilla Mundi) are questionable, and there's material about symbolism in the lead that is not found in the body, suggesting that there should be a body section about symbolism of the flag. Hog Farm _Talk 00:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: - I see you've been able to do some good work on the sandwiching/image layout issues. Are you interested in doing some work on the sourcing issues? Hog Farm _Talk 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue raised is Flag of the World being a questionable source according to Hog Farm.-Cheetah (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that a lot of the uncited text probably isn't so obvious as to not require a citation, per WP:FACR #1c. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users' imaginations are irrelevant in featured article discussions.-Cheetah (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FACR is, which asks for citations for non-obvious material. Hog Farm _Talk 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!-Cheetah (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Sourcing, comprehensiveness and structure. For example, the content about the Artaxiad dynasty is not given a citation in the article and the source on the file page appears to be a personal blog. Copies of this flag have been tagged as fictitious on commons: [2]. The article says the original three colors derive from the Lusignans, but the source used (which is a personal webpage, but appears to be based on Atlas of Historical Armenia [1933] by H. K. Babessian) says that the colors of the flag derive from the Rubenids, which is an earlier period. This early flag (if it existed) is not discussed in the article. The flag of the Lusignans is nominated for deletion on commons for being unsourced: [3]. The sources in the article are generally low quality websites and primary sources. The section on the national anthem is only sourced to the anthem itself and is not well integrated into the text, as there is little context apart from the trivial mention in the lyrics. Parts of the article appear to miss key information: for example, in 1952 a blue stripe was added but there's no explanation of who chose blue and why blue was chosen, or who were the designers. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "the content about the Artaxiad dynasty" - It does not need a citation per WP:BLUE
- "the source on the file page appears to be a personal blog" - Armenia is a poor country it either has governmental sites or personal blog sites. Wikipedia doesn't want everything to be cited by primary sources; thus, personal blogs are used.
- "Copies of this flag have been tagged as fictitious on commons" - Did you ask that person why he did that? I might as well remove that baseless tag.
- "the source used (which is a personal webpage, but appears to be based on Atlas of Historical Armenia [1933] by H. K. Babessian) says that the colors of the flag derive from the Rubenids" - A typo by that blogger. You can clearly see the flag of Rubenids in that blog and it doesn't have any colors that the current flag has.
- "The flag of the Lusignans is nominated for deletion" - What does that have to do with this article?
- "The sources in the article are generally low quality websites and primary sources" - See above, there aren't any other ones on the internet.
- "The section on the national anthem is only sourced to the anthem itself" - Of course, it is! It should not be sourced to the anthem of any country other than Armenia.
- "is not well integrated into the text, as there is little context apart from the trivial mention in the lyrics" - Do you think it should be removed?
- "in 1952 a blue stripe was added but there's no explanation of who chose blue and why blue was chosen, or who were the designers" - It was Soviet Union, the information you're looking for doesn't exist.

--Cheetah (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per the concerns identified by DrKay. Hog Farm _Talk 05:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although I sympathize with the difficulty of finding reliable sources for some material, ultimately FA quality requires that high-quality sources be cited. Many editors would prefer to exclude information, even if it may seem obvious to some people, if they can't cite a good source for it. (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On Google Scholar I was able to find the following reliable sources: [4] [5] all of which at least touch on the flag and none of which are cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Buidhe's comment above. Hog Farm _Talk 18:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.