Talk:Flag of Raleigh, North Carolina

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Front side of the flag of Raleigh, North Carolina

• ... that the flag of Raleigh, North Carolina (pictured) is perhaps the only American city flag to have different designs on the front and back? Source: Source: Purcell, John M., Croft, James A., Monahan, Rich (2003). "Raleigh’s flag is one of the very few double-sided U.S. civic flags..." American City Flags. North American Vexillological Association.
  • ALT1:... that the flag of Raleigh, North Carolina (pictured) was designed to be given to the USS Raleigh, yet no records exist of the ship ever receiving it? Source: Suarez, Leo (April 25, 2012). "At the same time that month, the Raleigh Board of Aldermen... decided to give a city flag as a gift to the cruiser". The City of Raleigh Flag. The Raleigh Connoisseur.

Created by Jordano53 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC).

• Long enough, new enough, QPQ not required (nominator has less than 5 DYk credits), well sourced and Earwig is happy.

I think the lead section needs to expanded a bit to add more emphasis to the history of the flag, since that is the biggest section in the article.

The original hook is the most interesting of the two. Is it possible to include an image of the back of the flag? I see that the source given does not specifically say that this flag is the only US city flag with different designs in the front and the back, and talks of "very few doubled-sided civic flags". I guess that is why you used the word 'perhaps'. Looking through that reference there is no other flag like that so it supports the hook, but not sure if this exhaustive evidence.

Sourcing for the ALT1 hook is more straightforward and clearer, and although it may not be as interesting, in my opinion it is good enough and could be used.

Thanks, Alan Islas (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alan Islas: Hi! Thanks for your review. I've added more about the history in the lead. As for the image, I posted a request on the Graphics Lab for the reverse side of the flag, we'll see if it gets created. Jordano53 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jordano53: Thanks for the additions. I think it's ok to not have any citations on the lead section, since the same information is properly referenced down in the body of the article. At least that is what I understood from the Manual of Style, but I'm not 100% sure.

Hopefully they can add the image of the reverse, it will be nice to have it the article. Without it I would vote for the ALT1 hook.

Just one more thing, went through the article again and noticed that two of the sources, this and this give the meaning of Amore et Virtute as "By Love and Valor", not "By Love and Virtue". I was going to change it, but I thought you might have seen it like that in another reference, since "virtue" appears to be a valid translation too, from a quick check in a Latin dictionary. Could you please verify this and change the inline citation after the translation of the motto to the correct reference that includes this translation? With that I think it would be good to go, in my opinion. Alan Islas (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alan Islas: Thanks for catching that! I went with "valor", as the source from the city itself states that is the translation. I think ALT1 is the better hook as well. Jordano53 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jordano53: Looks good. I've changed changed the tick, ready to go. Alan Islas (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

added to list of flags with differing sides

I've added this flag to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_whose_reverse_differs_from_the_obverse - it lacks an image of the reverse, hopefully someone can rectify that. - Metalello ^talk 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Raleigh, North Carolina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be happy to do this review. Will be back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
2. GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for linking.
7. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
9. GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
10. GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
12. GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
13. GACR#2c. No original research.
14. GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
17. GACR#5. Stable.
18. GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
19. GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I'll be using this list to complete the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary read of the article which is stable and I'm happy with the images which are appropriate and seem to be free of any problems. It therefore passes GACR#5 and GACR#6. I need to read it in more depth and hope to have time for that tomorrow but there are a couple of points in the meantime:

1. Richmond isn't on the coast so should it be termed an East Coast City? The state may have an Atlantic shoreline but the city does not.

2. "Sir Raleigh" is incorrect. You can call him Sir Walter Raleigh in full or just Sir Walter, once you have established who he was.

Back soon. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have changed "Sir Raleigh" to "Sir Walter" and have removed the "East Coast" information entirely. I appreciate your initial review and look forward to further comments. Thank you! Jordano⁵³ 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jordano, and thanks for the amendments. I've read the article again and it's fine. Very interesting, informative, well-written, well-sourced and a good article. Well done and I'm promoting it to GA. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)