Jump to content

Talk:Royal Banner of Scotland/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

After several quick read-throughs, the article appears to be at or about GA-level. I'll therefore carry out a more detailed review secion by section against WP:WIAGA, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Design -
  • Appears to be compliant.
  • History -
  • Ref 11 appears to be a book: the page number, or numbers, should be provided. Done
  • Otherwise, appears to be compliant.
  • Protocol -
    • Use at Royal residences -
  • Appears to be compliant.
    • Use by Royal representatives -
  • Appears to be compliant.
    • Legal status -
  • The final sentence in the first paragraph, i.e. "Despite such action, the flag continues to feature on a variety of merchandise and souvenirs produced commercially for Scotland's economically important tourism industry.", is unreferenced and thus appears to be a Point of View. Done
  • The final sentence in the second paragraph, i.e. "Today the flag continues to be used unofficially as a second national flag of Scotland, particularly at sporting events.", is unreferenced and thus appears to be a Point of View. Done
  • Otherwise, appears to be compliant.
  • Appearance in other Royal Standards -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be compliant.
  • National Flag of Scotland -
  • Appears to be compliant.
  • Further comment - "Broadness" -
  • Whilst it is not mentioned in this article, the Caledonian Railway obviously "pinched" the Royal Standard in the early 19th century and apparently got away with it. A reproduction appears [here]. There is (obviously) a way of describing their Coat of Arms which I'm not going to attempt: the flag firstly appears distorted to fit a shield supported by Unicorn rampants, which are holding aloft modified versions of both the National Flag of Scotland and Royal Standard of Scotland, etc, etc.
  • I think this aught to go into the article; but it does not fit "easily" into any of your existing sections, well possibly it could fit into Legal status. I should be able to find a reference of the "pinching", I half-remember it was put more politely - possibly "brazenly copied". I will try and find that citation tonight.
Whilst I agree that you have an important and noteworthy point with regard to the Caledonian Railway, I feel that although a reference to the company's use of the pre-1603 Royal Arms should be made, it should not however be in this article. This article concerns the Banner of Arms of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland; the article concerning the Arms themselves possibly being a more appropriate place for the Caledonian Railway to be mentioned. It would be a great addition to that article if you can indeed track down a reference. Did they also use the Banner of the Arms in any way, do you know? Endrick Shellycoat 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC) PS Thanks for all your work re. WP:GA assessment.[reply]
Yes, as you have brought my attention to the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland, I agree that it is more appropriate than this article. No they did not apear to use the Banner of the Arms, just a modified version of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland; but I was not aware of the latter. Thanks, I've learnt something that I did not know before. Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be compliant.


Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An interesting, well-illustrated and well-referenced article on a specialist subject.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]