Talk:Flag of Europe/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead is well written, but perhaps a bit short. All sections of the article should be mentioned in the lead, but it currently does not have parts from "Derivative designs", "History" nor anything about why there are twelve stars. A lead twice the length would be preferred. I would have preferred that the colors (golden, yellow and blue) were wikilinked in the main section, instead of the lead. The lead usually collects a lot of blue links, and it is better to save some of the more trivial ones (like color) to the main body. It is unclear if Arsène Heitz submitted one of dozens of designs, since the first half of the sentence is in pluran, and the second half in singular. It would be better if one type of block quotation was used (there are two different styles now). On a general note, the author of this article writes too long sentances; they should be cut down in length by adding commas, semicolons and often a period. I have copyedited away most of the extreme cases.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is at least one [citation needed] tag. Under the quotation in "design", I am confused where the quote is from; is it also from ref 6? There must be no unambiguity regarding where quotes are sourced. Many of the references are correctly formatted in the {{cite}} template.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:EUAT2006KoolhaasLogo.jpg lacks a fair use rationale, and I am uncertain if one would be valid in this article (I would presume the fair use could only be claimed on the article about the the presidency, but I am uncertain).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. There are some references lacking (including {{fact}} tags placed during the review), and I would like to see a longer lead. Otherwise well written and exiting article. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Either by me or others, I think all issues are sorted except for length of sentences and the image rationale (I'll leave that to someone who can understand copyright). Correct me if I'm wrong.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not seeing this comment sooner. All the content issues are now resolved, but I have had to remove the image in question, since it cannot be claimed within fair use. I seem to have made a critical orthographic mistake under section 2, where my point was that there are quite a number of references that are not in {{cite}} tages, and these should be converted, along with adding |accessdate = to them. Once this is done, I will pass the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All matters have been seen to, and this article should now be considered a good article. Congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you very much for your time.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)