Talk:Flag of Indiana/GA1

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

Hi! I will be conducting the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the first sentence of the "History" section, you say "the Indiana General Assembly issued resolution to adopt a state flag." Should this be "issued a resolution"?
 * In the last sentence of the "Iconography" section, you say "and the one large star above the torch to represent Indiana." This reads slightly awkwardly.  Could it be reworded to something like "and the one large star above the torch represents Indiana."?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The "Iconography" section has no references. Because this section is discussing the meanings of each part of the flag, rather than just the design itself (which anyone can see), this really should be referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

If the few things that I've detailed above are resolved, I will pass the article as GA. I am putting this article on hold for seven days to allow time for the editors to make these minor changes. If there are any questions, I can be contact here on the review page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Overall, this is a well-written and referenced article that is very close to GA standard. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the issues you noted above, and added two footnotes to the section mentioned, which where the same refs used to right the rest of the article. Thanks for you review. Charles Edward 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I am passing the article now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)