Talk:Coat of arms/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: LavaBaron (talk · contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

reasonably well written  - tinctures do not use proper heraldic descriptions, despite the fact heraldic language is used in other facets of the article (e.g. "with a blue chief, which is displayed upon" - should be "with a chief Azure ...") - either plain language descriptions should be used throughout or heraldic terminology throughout, but we shouldn't do a mix-and-match

factually accurate and verifiable  - vast sections, too numerous to itemize here, lack inline citations  - this otherwise exhaustive article only has 15 sources, none of which are the formative, cornerstone texts on this topic (e.g. Boutelle's Heraldry, etc.)

broad in its coverage  - overly broad in parts ... the only reason there would be a section on flags in this article is if it were to describe banners of arms, which it does not - the section on New World Practices describes the arms of the United States in such a way that does not account for recent research into the topic; see, for example, Boulton's comprehensive study in the most recent issue of Alta Studia Heraldica, among others

NPOV  - yes

stable  - yes; recent substantial edits have been by the nom in order to prep it for GA review

illustrated  - though the article is on arms specifically, the illustrations are all of the entire heraldic achievement (compartments, supporters, crest, etc.) less badge, but are captioned to indicate they are the "coat of arms" which will create confusion for the reader

The sourcing issue is such a big one with this nomination that there is no reason to put the article on hold for improvement. It should not be nominated for GA consideration until every statement in the article is sourced to RS. At a minimum, that means an inline citation at the end of every paragraph (though likely every sentence, given the complexity of the topic). At present, we have nearly one dozen paragraphs that lack even a single source. LavaBaron (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)