Talk:History of the flags of Romania

DPEПTATE?

Why is it written DPEПTATE instead of ДPEПTATE? The article on Romanian Cyrillic alphabet shows Д. Is this a distinct letter, or just a variant printing form of Д? --Amble (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a transitional alphabet. During the XIXth century, the Danubian Principalities gradually left out cyrillic letters, replacing them with latin ones. Check out this painting carefully. It is from 1848 precisely. You can clearly see it's a D. --Alex:D (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: This transition was slow and there were no strict rules for it. As you can see on the military flag from 1848 that has survived, the Д is still present. --Alex:D (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I did notice the picture showing the clear D, not Д. It's very striking, since I'm not at all used to seeing Latin and Cyrillic letters together in the same word. --Amble (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the flags of Romania/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I believe that this article has enough material to become a Good Srticle. It was a DYK and is over 85,407 bytes. It'll make a great GA nominee. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): a (MoS):

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. 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):

   My conceran it that it has too many images as maybe it is possibly i have seen some GAs with gallerys but i recomend that you take the non neasecery images.

4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

I will let seven days to improve the artical. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific with your concerns. It is difficult to improve things if you are too vague about them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your concern about too many images, I don't think this is the case here. The article is about the various flags of ROmania, which is necessarily a visual topic. Therefore, anyone reading the article would expect to see a large number and wide variety of examples of the various flags used throughout Romania's history. I don't think the article is overwhelmed with the images. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Point takean.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall: Pass. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Can someone bulk-up the intro? It should be at least twice the present size as a GA. Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:1dec1918.jpg nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_20 Avpop (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meet the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are uncited statements throughout the article.
• I do not think the "Acts of heroism under the flag" section is written encyclopedicly. Instead, some of it seems like nationalist rhetoric, off-topic, or should be redistributed to other sections of the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

History of the flags of Romania

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited statements throughout the article. I also do not think the "Acts of heroism under the flag" section is written encyclopedically. Instead, some of it seems like nationalist rhetoric, off-topic, or should be redistributed to other article sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.