Talk:United Nations Honour Flag/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 01:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is a long way from meeting the criteria on breadth, prose quality, and sourcing.

• You cite the World Flag Encyclopedia by Brooks Harding, but say it's by the author of the specific article by Marguerite Sitgreaves (totally fair mistake.) But this is not sourced to the encyclopedia, it is sourced to a Flags of the World (a web forum) post where someone posts a sample from this book. Someone quoting a book on a user-generated forum does not equal a citation for the book. You use this for the vast majority of the sourcing on the article. The Washington Post article is the only reliable source used, and you use it to cite the fact that Brooks Harding was an American.
• You mention the online Dictionary of Vexillology in prose like this is a reliable source, but again, this is a user generated web forum!
• It's often called the Four Freedoms Flag. What are the Four Freedoms? This article doesn't say, or link for that matter; but they're the core design element of the flag!
• No mention of the later United Nations flag that replaced this, or of precursors or other art during World War II using the Four Freedoms motif, or of the iconography used to represent the Allies in general.
• You don't repeat the names you list in the lede in the body of the text, but give alternate, bolded names near the end of the article.
• "the red bars were substituted with gold, while some nations preferred green and blue bars" Which countries, and why?
• Use the "circa" template when using c. to abbreviate "circa".

All in all, just a shame. This is a very interesting subject matter, but this article would have to be completely rewritten with better sourcing to give a reliable overview of the subject. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:02, 23 March 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.