Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Singapore/archive4

Flag of Singapore edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After three failed attempts, Flag of Singapore finally attained GA status in November 2008. Zscout370, Jacklee and I want the article to achieve FA status, so it can appear on the Main Page on 9 August, Singapore's National Day. Although the article failed FAC in January 2009, we still have time and we shall not give up. Please thoroughly review the article and give us useful, detailed feedback, especially on organisation (are some sections too long?) and prose, to help ensure the second FAC will be successful. Thank you. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Recognizance: On organisation, I think the Usage guidelines could be better organised. I suggest making it similar to the Use section, where you have National Day followed by other times, and eliminate the proper use and display header. The second paragraph of the main section could be merged into the National Day subsection since it covers the same topic and is currently rather short. Let me know what you think.

As for sections being too long, that doesn't seem to be an issue. The only length-related comment I have is the short National Day section, but that would be alleviated under the above suggestion. I plan to do a more detailed prose-related review in a few hours. Recognizance (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is well done. I can find very little to criticise:

Eww, you used Britannica as a reference! I thought the point of Wikipedia was to rival Britannica. ;)
"For the manufacturing of flags, the Government of Singapore recommends a few sizes..." - You explain the sizes and that any size is allowed as long as the proportions are correct, but briefly mentioning the purpose of each MICA recommendation would be helpful.
- If you want something like http://flagspot.net/flags/pk.html#siz then MICA does not have a recommended use for each size. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the entire article, I'm unsure about my organisation suggestion: while I still think "in general" is a rather generic headline, I'd like to get your input.

The article reflects the amount of work that has gone into it. You should have no trouble getting it featured. Recognizance (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the title should be changed to "General usage." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went ahead and removed the "In general heading" and implemented the other changes you have mentioned. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article, and there are few issues to speak of. The prose seems to be at FA-quality; granted, I copyedited the article a while ago, so I have the disadvantage of being familiar with the text. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks pretty good overall to me.

Three naval flags are mentioned in the lead, but only two are shown at the bottom of the article - I would be consistent and wither show none or show all three.
I would add the dates used to the caption for File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg, so Flag for the Straits Settlements, used 1874-1942 (going by the dates in the image title)
In the quote, the MOS says it is OK to change captializations at the start of sentences, so "[A]lthough..." could just be "Although"
Any idea who actually designed the flag? A committee or eingle person? Who is Singapore's Betsy Ross?
Refs usually go at the end of a sentence (or at least after punctuation) so fix things like On 30 November 1959, the Singapore State Arms and Flag and National Anthem Ordinance 1959[7] was passed to regulate...
Watch overlinking - millimetres and inches probably do not need to be linked, and MICA is linked twice in two sections (Design, then Regulations and guidelines)- see WP:OVERLINK
Probably do not need to spell out MICA twice in two sections either
The photo File:Bush addresses U.S. embassy staff and families in Singapore.jpg is too small to really show the lions, and the caption could be clearer - did this defacing of the flag cause an uproar? Who added the lions? Perhaps the text should address this too.
I agree that using Encyclopedia Brittanica may be problematic at FAC

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]