Talk:List of Puerto Rican flags/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full list of comments up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the Flags of the municipalities of Puerto Rico section, would it be possible to revamp the table so that there are more columns and less rows? So, there are 7-8 flags in each row, which would make the table look better (it's currently oddly skewed to the right) and take up less space. New Table provided
 * The second external link deadlinks. Eliminated
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please make sure that all references have publishers and access dates.Done
 * Please make sure that all references that are not in English are marked with their language.Done
 * What makes Ref #7 (Spanish Colonial Flag of PUerto Rico) a reliable source for information on flags? Provided better ref.
 * What makes Ref #8 (Francisco Gonzalo Marin) a reliable source? It appears to be a blog. Provided reliable source
 * What makes Ref #12 (Sabia Usted?) a reliable source? It is page in the official website of the town of Sabana Grande
 * What makes Ref #17 (Flag of Puerto Rico) a reliable source? Written by Martín Espada an authority and professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (I added this fact to ref.)
 * What makes Ref #20 (National Flags) a reliable source? Eliminated ref. which really wasn't needed
 * What makes Ref #21 (Utuado, Puerto Rico) a reliable source? Replaced
 * What makes Ref #22 (Flag of Utuado) a reliable source? Replaced with Official city site
 * What makes Ref #23 (Bandera de San German) a reliable source? Replaced


 * All of the above done by Tony the Marine (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * There are quite a few referencing issues, along with some layout concerns, so I am placing this review on hold. I have not completed a full check of the prose due to the other issues. When I see the other issues being rectified I will take another look at the article checking the prose. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dana boomer, you are right! I provided a new table which evened out the distribution of the flags. I have also replaced unreliable refs with new reliable ones and made notations on those which are in "Spanish". In one case (Ref #17) I added the information in regard to the authority who wrote the piece in question, which is one thing that I should have done in the first place. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, thanks for your quick response and the work that you've done so far. I haven't been able to be on the computer much today, but I will go over the article again tomorrow to pick up any remaining issues. I apologize for the delay, and will put this at the top of my priority list for tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are quite a few referencing issues, along with some layout concerns, so I am placing this review on hold. I have not completed a full check of the prose due to the other issues. When I see the other issues being rectified I will take another look at the article checking the prose. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dana boomer, you are right! I provided a new table which evened out the distribution of the flags. I have also replaced unreliable refs with new reliable ones and made notations on those which are in "Spanish". In one case (Ref #17) I added the information in regard to the authority who wrote the piece in question, which is one thing that I should have done in the first place. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, thanks for your quick response and the work that you've done so far. I haven't been able to be on the computer much today, but I will go over the article again tomorrow to pick up any remaining issues. I apologize for the delay, and will put this at the top of my priority list for tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Comments
Here are the issues that I found in a second run-through of the article:
 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article, and should not include original information. Currently, there is nothing mentioned in the lead about municipal, political or sports flags. Also, there is original information about specific government regulations that is not included in the body of the article. Re-written
 * Whoa!!! You went a bit above and beyond what I meant. The length of the lead before was good, just a little too focused on certain parts of the body of the article. It now needs to be trimmed back a bit - articles of this length should have a lead of 2-3 paragraphs, each about the same or maybe slightly longer than the current paragraphs.


 * What? You are driving me crazy (Just joking, smile), Dana I shortened it. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the design section of the infobox, it says "a blue...blisosceles triangle". I think this is supposed to be "isosceles triangle", but didn't want to change it in case it was a specific flag term. Fixed
 * First flags in Puerto Rico section, "Columbus wrote in his logbook that on October 12, 1492 he picked the Royal Flag,". What do you mean by "picked the Royal Flag"? Picked it for what? Fixed
 * Same section, "green cross formy couped addorsed". Um, what? I'm not sure if there are spelling mistakes here or if it is flag terminology - if the latter, it needs to be wikilinked or explained. Fixed
 * Political flags of Puerto Rico section, "On occasions the Nationalists would also carry the Puerto Rican flag with the light blue triangle, which was outlawed." Was this outlawed during the time when flying the flag was completely outlawed (1898 to 1952) or was this a different law? Fixed
 * Same section, do you have a description of the flag of the Boricua Popular Army? I have not found a free one
 * I'm not asking for a picture, just a text description. For all of the other flags, except for this one, you give a text description as well as an image. I realize how hard it can be to find free-use images, which is why a text description would be nice, so that readers can visualize the flag. Done
 * All of the websites still need to have publishers given. I am lost here. I have provided reliable refs. with retrieved dates and so on, much as I have done with all my other "GA" articles. Sorry but, I need help in this one.
 * I added a couple of publishers to references. It's basically just listing the group or organization who placed the information on the web. This makes it easier for reviewers and readers to see if you got your information, for example, from a reputable university or a self-published geocities site. See? I see, Done Tony the Marine (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by: Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once these things are taken care of, I'll take another look through the article, but it should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Things are looking good, but not quite there yet. I've added my responses to the ones above that need further work - the ones I consider completed I've struck off. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the extra work on the lead...I should have been more specific the first time through :( It looks great now, as does the rest of the article. Very nice work, and thanks again for the prompt response and the amount of effort and patience you put into dealing with my nit-pickyness. I am going to pass the article to GA status now.
 * As a further comment for work in the future (this has nothing to do with the GA status), I would suggest referencing the information that was added on the flag descriptions and symbolism to was added to the Political and Sports sections. Also, doing some work to expand the political section as discussed below. It's good as it is now, but any critical commentary that could be added on the development of political flags would be amazing. That's all I've got for now; again, good work and nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Party Comments
I would suggest that the Political Flags section either be limited to the flags of the two registered parties, the NPP and the PDP, and the two parties that participated in the most recent election and are attempting to re-register, the PIP and the PPR, or that a much broader selection of flags be included. For example, if the Nationalist Party flag is to be included, so should those of other pro-independence parties that also appeared on the ballot for one election, such as the PUP, PSP and PAS. The flags of other pro-statehood parties, such as the PER, Partido Estadista Republicano, which appeared on the ballot for 68 years, and the PRP, the Partido Renovación Puertorriqueña (1984), should also be included. The flag of the Partido Acción Cristiana (PAC) the party founded in 1960 by the Catholic Church in its against Gov. Muñoz Marín should also have a place on the page. I don't know of any internet-based source for the pictures required, which might need some original research or scanning of history books or State Elections Commission publications. Otherwise, this particular section would not be at the same level as the rest of the article. Pr4ever (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. The main objective of the article is the flag of Puerto Rico and it's history. The political flags would be what I call a secondary subject or sub-subject of the article. It would take a lot of additional research and it is not an easy task to find images and much less those that are PD in the net. I will do it in the long run, but not for now. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I say that we keep the current ones and add PPR to the table, that should cover the major active parties, leaving out the huge spectrum of defunct ones. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)