Talk:Flag of Colorado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Parameters of the flag that are not defined, according to the article:

  1. the color of the yellow,
  2. the ratio of width to height
  3. the horizontal position of the yellow disc,
  4. the exact shape of the red C

A reference for this article would be nice! dbenbenn | talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Flags of the World, the ratio is 2:3 (height:width). dbenbenn | talk 06:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox date of adoption does not match the article; changed to match. Krychek (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The March 31, 1964 Senate Bill cited in the article makes no mention of the disk size. Mbucari1 

 https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/webclient/DeliveryManager/digitool_items/cub01_storage/2014/10/23/file_1/384549  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbucari1 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 97198 (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Flag of Colorado
Flag of Colorado

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 06:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I would just like to say that I am a new reviewer and I am requesting another, more experienced reviewer to look at this nomination. The article has been expanded 5x times. It is neutral, nicely-sourced and plagiarism free. All four hooks are cited and interesting (I like the third one (ALT2) the most) and I believe they appeal to a wide audience. LefcentrerightDiscuss 18:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lefcentreright, thanks for the review. For whichever user picks up the review from here, I have added a QPQ above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Giving a second opinion here, I think I actually prefer the original hook since it seems to be more eye-catching and surprising. I honestly find ALT2 (the original reviewer's preferred option) rather bland. My main concern is that ALT0 is slightly misleading: the hook wording implies that it is the DAR that suggested the current flag, when in fact their proposal was rejected and the current flag was proposed by someone else. If ALT0 doesn't work out, ALT1 is my back-up choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, that's a valid point you make about ALT0; I've tried some alternatives below. I also found another fact or two that might be interesting as a hook, which I have added as ALT4 and ALT5 above.
If any of these needs tweaking or if another hook is needed let me know and I can find another one. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After giving this some thought, sadly I think we'll need to shelve ALT0 and its variants unless you're willing to make that a non-image hook. The problem here is that, no matter what, having the picture next to ALT0 and its variants could confuse readers and make them think that the DAR proposed the current flag of Colorado. A possible solution would be to remove "(pictured)" and have ALT0b (probably the most accurate version) run as a non-image hook. Of course, that would mean that the hook won't be in the image slot: would you be fine with that? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, I think that's a totally fair observation. I hope this doesn't sound too selfish but my first choice would be having the image hook if that's at all possible; I'd happily support ALT1 and ALT4 (probably in that order of preference) as image hooks before ALT0b, though if an image hook space is not a viable option then ALT0 or ALT0b would be my pick. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think I know what we can do here. I'm approving ALT0 without the image, and ALT1 can be an image hook if the promoter desires. Basically, if ALT1 is chosen by the promoter, it can be an image hook or it can be not (it's up to the promoter). But if the promoter chooses ALT0, it should not be in the image slot for reasons I mentioned above. Like the nominator I have a slight preference for ALT0 (I think not putting an image solves my concerns about wording, so in such cases ALT0a/b are unnecessary), but I will leave the final decision to the promoter. Rest of the review is per Lefcentreright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Colorado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sucker for vexillology... so let's give this a shot! ~Vocem Virtutis

Good Article Criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    At a glance, this article actually does seem pretty well-written, which isn't at all what I'm used to, so props to you. I assume there may be a few nitpicky issues that I may find and take care of on my own, and I'll let you know if I notice anything bigger when I go more in-depth, but I think that this criterion looks pretty near well-met.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I'll have to take some time later to go into each of the sources and references. Again, I don't notice issues off the bat.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See "First Thoughts" below. I think that overall, the scope is decent, but a little more information wouldn't hurt.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This looks good to me at a glance.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems here.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I'll have to check the photos sometime later to ensure they've been used properly, but I definitely am a fan of including the historic flags. Again, props!
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

First Thoughts[edit]

Right off the bat, the article looks pretty solid to me, though there are a few things that I definitely need to take a closer look at. I checked the list of Good Articles to see if there were other articles about US State Flags that we might be able to use to give us a bit of direction. As it turns out, the flags of Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Washington state have all been promoted to Good Articles. Looking and comparing the articles, I think that it might be best to make some changes to the section on "Reception and other uses". It seems to me that the section is much more about the 'other uses' half of that phrase. I think it would be best to make that section dedicated to the usage of the flag. I like the idea of having some information on the reception of the flag, but I think that reception should probably be its own section, assuming there's enough information out there to justify a new section. My other thought is that it might be good to include a section on flag protocol, as seen in the articles on the flags of West Virginia and Washington. I can't say that I know whether the flag of Colorado has any unique protocols that are supposed to be followed, but if there are, I definitely think a section on that ought to be included. Again, all things considered, I still think this is absolutely a solid article, and I apprciate the work I see you've already put into it; I think that just a little more will definitely push this over to GA status!

I'm about to start on this but I'll lay out my idea before I do so. I am planning to move the first sentence from "Reception and other uses" (about the NAVA survey) to the end of the "Design and symbolism" section, since the survey dealt specifically with the design of the various state/provincial flags. I have found enough material that I think a "Protocol" section would be doable, so I'll add that between "Design and symbolism" and "Other uses". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vocem Virtutis, I have added the "Protocol" section with what info I could find. I believe I've addressed everything you brought up so I'm going to go ahead and ping you - if there's anything else that needs adding, fixing, or touching up, please let me know! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you much! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Issues[edit]

Lead

The lead looks very good to me. There were a couple grammatical errors I cleaned up. The one sentence I don't love is "This flag was presented to the legislature but was unpopular, and was replaced by Carson's design, which was much more popular." The sentence feels a bit clunky to me. Something to the effect of "This flag was presented to the legislature but, because it was less popular than Carson's design, was replaced." The specific rewording is up to you, of course.
 Done added just one word to your suggestion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Again, this looks solid to me. No complaints.

History

"An unofficial banner, consisting simply of the state seal on a blue background, was used in an unofficial capacity beginning that year." This sentence is redundant.
 Done right you are. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink for "Nil sine numine" doesn't seem to be working.
minus Removed I just decided to take the link off, I couldn't get that to work properly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "This flag proved unpopular, as only one physical flag was ever produced and it was never flown publicly, but rather sat unused in a custodial closet within the Colorado State Capitol Building." also feels a bit clunky to me. Maybe it would do better as two sentences.
 Done reworked to make two sentences, with the break after "flown publicly". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This final clarification is considered the birth of the flag that is in use today." I don't know about this line. I get that it supposed to be an idiom, but the phrasing seems very odd to me. I see in the source where the source's author uses this phrasing, so I understand why you included it. Still, I think it would be better to say something like "This final clarification brought about the flag in use today."
 Done reworded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Design and Symbolism

"The red letter "C" stands for three things: the name of the state, "Colorado", a Spanish word meaning "red"; the word "centennial", referring to Colorado's accession to statehood in 1876, the year of the United States' centennial; and "columbine", referring to the state flower." I think that the clause 'a Spanish word meaning "red"' probably doesn't belong here. I think that it throws the flow of the sentence off a little bit, and ultimately is not important information in regards to the flag specifically.
minus Removed PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else in this section, I think is very solid!

Reception and Other Uses

I like all of the information contained here, and it looks well researched. That said, please see the above comments for my thoughts on the organization of the section itself.

Thoughts After Initial Reading[edit]

Thanks for putting this article together! Just a little bit of work will, I think, put this at GA quality! Please do get back to me soon so that I know you've seen the review to this point; if I do not get a response within the next day or so, I'll go ahead and put the review on hold.
Vocem Virtutis, thanks for the review - I'll get to this in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I'm glad to be a part of it! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @PCN02WPS! It's been a few days, so I did just want to check in on everything. I have to travel several hours over this weekend to attend a funeral. If you finish the article within the next day or so (I'll leave it to you to decide how tall an order that may be), I should be able to run back through it before I leave; however, it takes much more time than that, I can't promise I'll be available until maybe Tuesday of next week. I don't mean to pressure you to finish, I just want to make sure you know what's happening on my end! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vocem Virtutis I appreciate you reaching out. I have found myself rather busy with another article that I've been working on pretty consistently over the past few days, so I haven't had all the time I've wanted to devote to this review. Adding in the fact that I will likely not be on Wikipedia much this weekend since I'll be moving back to school means that I will probably not be able to work on this consistently until Monday, so the wait on your end is no problem at all. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good with me! Thanks for keeping me up to speed! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding Thoughts and Concerns[edit]

References; Once these are corrected, I think that we should be ready for GA status.

There are some MOS issues with the way references are used throughout the article. For example, the second paragraph of the History section has four sentences in a row after which the same source is referenced. According to Wikipedia MOS, this is unnecessary. The reference should only be made after the information taken from a particular source ends. The article doesn't need to have the same source cited on consecutive sentences within the same paragraph, and this issue is present in all of the first three sections of the article. In fact, in the Design and Symbolism section, the same source is referenced two consecutive times within the same sentence.
I think that reading the accuracy section of the website [1] suggests that the source for reference 3 is maybe not the best.
Reference 15 is another one that I'm hesitant to call reputable. I don't know that the article gives any information that you couldn't find somewhere with a bit better a source. Ultimately, you could even leave out the piece about Colorado being the ONLY state to use its unaltered flag in its highway markers if needed.
Vocem Virtutis, I have replaced ref 3 and taken out the "only state to use unaltered flag" bit that included ref 15. I don't think that those MOS issues are covered by the GA criteria based on what I read at WP:GACN but I can take care of them nonetheless when I get a little more time later today. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vocem Virtutis, I have taken care of the MOS issue you raised as well so I think this is ready for another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Giving it another look now!
For future reference, I suppose I don't technically have a place where the MOS specifically says there's something wrong with consecutively making in-line citations referencing the same source; however, at Wikipedia:Inline citation in the subsection on citation density, an example is provided that demonstrates the concern I was addressing. Even if it isn't specifically in contradiction of MOS, it is redundant and, thus, unnecessary. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Review[edit]

I am passing this good article review on the the flag of Colorado. I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The page covers the history, design, protocol, and usage of the flag in sufficient depth and scope. The sources for the article have been checked, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. Vocem Virtutis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.fotw.info/flags/disclaim.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Colorado&oldid=1200856792"