Wikipedia:Featured article review/Flag of India/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics, User talk:Nichalp.

FA from 2005, 1c issues throughout. Could use an image review of the 22 images used in the article. Some entirely too-short subsections and even one-sentence subsections and one-sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments I just fixed the dab links, and added some alt, but came to the point where some flags in the article just didn't make sense. There are some significant changes in content (unsourced/undue) since the FA, mostly over the past year that need some closer inspection. Will get some kind of a look-in over the next couple of days. - Spaceman  Spiff  05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text done; thanks. Thanks for starting on the alt text. It doesn't have to be quite that long. I tried to it, based on WP:ALT, WP:ALT, and WP:ALT. I hope this helps save you some work when writing the other alt text that's needed. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will. I've only written alt for one featured bit before, and in that brevity didn't appear to be a concern :) - Spaceman  Spiff  06:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just now came back and checked the alt text. After a couple of tweaks to templates it looks fine. Thanks for writing it. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments The article is in need of a significant overhaul and isn't exactly of the "fix some issues and it'll get there" variety. A couple of us are attempting to make some significant changes, also discussed at Talk:Flag of India, so I'd request a week's time before the article is evaluated by reviewers. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If work is ongoing, then it stays open, sometimes for ages like Featured article review/Cane toad/archive1 and Featured article review/Lake Burley Griffin/archive1, which were all effectively done anew  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of research, comprehensiveness (incomplete sections). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, as per FA criteria concern. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, that is not a valid delist declaration. Work has been ongoing on this article, and the FARC period lasts at least two weeks.  What are your reasons for a Delist, so the editors working on the article can try to improve the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the FA criteria concerns stated in this subsection by . I am, of course, always happy to revisit when the article is improved to a satisfactory level of quality. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is still an invalid and non-specific declaration. When moving from FAR to FARC, the delegate mentions concerns that have been raised during the FAR. That doesn't mean they are still valid, or that an autoDelist should be entered without identifying current issues when work is ongoing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware, the search for decent quality sources took a lot longer than I expected. I've listed out six sources (on the article talk page) that should pass muster (let me know if you think any of them are not good). As far as the comprehensiveness and quality of research aspects, I just split out a lot of content that didn't belong in the article and we're just starting the rewrite, so these two issues will take a few days to address. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

History section looks excellent. Incredible job by. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold, per above comment by . Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When this article was listed at FAR for "1c issues throughout", it had, as far as I can tell, at least one ref for most paragraphs except a few in the "half mast" section - and even those may have been part of the Flag Code citation. So what, specifically, are the issues? Gimmetrow 02:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see some good improvements, nice work. It appears, however, that especially in the Flag_of_India subsection, the images could use some formatting improvements. Cirt (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those images have to go, and the content in that section has to be condensed. Once the history section is comprehensive enough, I'll tackle this. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  18:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks very much! No worries, Cirt (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep as a FA. Seems overly bureaucratic, specifying thread count, etc.  But that is the government's problem, not the article's problem.  Suggest finding a reference to the manufacturing process section where it states that 40 million flags made per year.  After that is done, keep it as a FA. JB50000 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Inline cites throughout article and quality of references looks good. AFAICT, looks comprehensive as well. Copyright on all images except for File:Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka.jpg looks good. I question the non-free rationale used since the photo is of an object that still exists and could potentially be photographed. If this image is replaced or removed, I will change my vote to just 'keep'. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've searched all over for a free image and haven't been able to find any. If the non-free rationale is shaky, then I can remove the image in favor of adding one in when we get a free image. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see some good improvements. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A few quick notes:
 * Sourcing: the main sources used in the article are quite good and really the best available (I had checked sometime back). I am less gung-ho about some of the news sources used for some peripheral statements, some of which I find dubious.
 * Writing: fine overall, although it can use a third-party copyedit; in particular, the language can get a bit colloquial in the History section (which also perhaps overuses passive voice), and the Protocol section, perhaps unavoidably, can read like bureaucratese.
 * Comprehensiveness The history and symbolism section are particularly informative and well-balanced. The manufacturing and protocol sections get into the weeds a bit, but given that this is a short article I can accept that the additional details are okay to retain.
 * Images: Well illustrated and no licensing issues (other that the Sarnath capitol image pointed above)
 * Misc:
 * The Reference section needs an update since I don't think it reflects the current version of the article (and some refs. have incomplete information). Also some of the links are dead.
 * The article should mention that the flag is rectangular (!) and top-to-side edge length ratio. The latter is only ascertainable from a table; not sure what that table means anyway (what are flag sizes 1,2,..., 9?)
 * The infobox needs to be fixed to reflect that the flag was based on a design by Pingali Venkayya, and not designed by him per se.
 * Most of these issues should be easy to fix, and I'd be happy to support a keep at FARC even if the copyediting is to be undertaken later. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly fixed by SS and myself - BTW, could you please clarify what you mean by an 'update' to the Reference section? Does the page cache have to be purged or some such? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I am starting to copyedit this, so please bear with me. It's going to need a fair amount of work. Is everyone satisfied it's been fact-checked sufficiently? I ask because I found the text description of the Calcutta flag to be different from the accompanying image. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the anomaly earlier, the flag image was carried over from an earlier version, but the text is new and the source I have says:
 * "The flag - red, green and yellow - bore on its red band eight white lotuses symbolizing the eight British Indian provinces; on the yellow band it carried a sun and a crescent moon to symbolize Hindus and Muslims; in the middle was the slogan 'Bande Mataram' in Devanagri (a Hindi script derived from Sanskrit)."
 * There's also another image on Commons File:India1907Flag.png that has the colours in another order. I'll see if I can find some reliable source with the image itself, if not, I think it's best to remove the image. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We'll need to check the text too because I reversed the colors in the description to match our image. If that wasn't correct, we'll need to switch it back. I don't have access to the source. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Queries - I've gone through the whole thing now. I was left with a few matters I couldn't resolve. Maybe someone can help?
 * "The Swaraj flag designed in 1921 by Pingali Venkayya, an agriculturist from Machilipatnam, was proposed as the flag the Congress by Gandhi." I cannot sort this sentence—words seem to be missing.
 * The article uses the term "khadi" irregularly. In the lead, "khadi"; in History, "Khadi-cotton"; in Manufacturing process, "khadi cloth". What's proper?
 * "The BIS then checks for the colours and only then can the flag be sold." Unclear.. checks for the colours, or checks the colours? What are they checking for?
 * "Officers of Flag-rank of the army, navy and air force." Since these are linked and referring to the actual Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force, should they be capitalized?
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've split the opening statement to two sentences, I think it has better flow now, feel free to modify it or let me know if there's something missing.
 * Khadi-cotton and Khadi-silk are used to specify the type of fabric. "Khadi cloth", purely because it's difficult for a lay-reader to figure out what Khadi is (it's wikilinked in the lead, so I didn't add the cloth bit there)
 * I capitalized Army/Navy/Air Force
 * Let me know if you have any other questions/comments. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's looking much better now. It still could use some more wrenching on the prose, but it's nothing I would delist over. Thanks to SpacemanSpiff and everyone who put in so much hard work to save this. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.