Talk:Flag of Prince Edward Island

Lion

what does the lion represent on the Pei flag

Hi! Thanks for the question. Take another look at the article; the lion's purpose in the flag is described. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 00:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical flag

This article shows an image of a hypothetical flag, but it isn't mentioned in the text. What is it? Bazonka (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what it says, a hypothetical flag. 117Avenue (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Flag of Prince Edward Island

• ... that the three oak saplings on the flag of Prince Edward Island (pictured) represent the counties that make up the province? Source: Encyclopedia Britannica; Government of Prince Edward Island
  • Reviewed: First review of 1963 Saint John's Johnnies football team
  • Comment: Please save for July 1, Canada Day (1867) and 149th anniversary of PEI joining Confederation (1873) (exactly 6 weeks from now). Please use in the image slot.

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC).

• The article is long enough at around 8300 characters. It was 5x expanded on May 20 and nominated promptly. The hook checks out. A QPQ has been done. Ready to go. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Given this WT:DYK discussion and the circumstances behind it, should the image slot request still be granted or not? Pinging all participants in that discussion: @SL93, Amakuru, Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, Maile66, and Valereee: as well as the original reviewer Moscow Connection. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • missed one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think that's a better question for a promoter who does not fall under WP:INVOLVED or WP:NACINV. So your initial attempt to promote this nom into the non-image slot of another prep was improper and highly inappropriate. Especially since your comments at WT:DYK indicate you were intending to do this as a punitive measure (contravening the letter and spirit of DYKSG). —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Promoted back to prep 3. There is absolutely no procedural reason why this had to held up further. The hook is ready to go, the request for an image slot has already been politely turned down by SL93, and there was no consensus at WT:DYK that that decision should somehow be overridden. Thanks for working on this article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Prince Edward Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• N Almost none of the article’s History or Protocol sections, and none of the text about the flag’s symbolism, has been summarized within the lead (see MOS:INTRO for more information about what needs to be included in a lead section).
• Link field (Field (heraldry)) here and in the infobox.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• A minor point, but I would amend the province to ‘the province of Prince Edward Island’ (linked) for the sake of clarity, and to ensure PEI is linked in the lead.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Link royal warrant in the infobox.

• Linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

1 History

• the United Kingdom should read ‘Great Britain’, the name of the country at this time.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• It was consequently placed – ‘The island was consequently placed’ is clearer.

• Agreed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Link colony; seal (Seal (emblem)); garrison.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• smaller trees – the source calls them saplings, which isn’t quite the same thing—I would use the term the source gives.

• Done. I was trying to avoid WP:CLOP, but I think this will fall under WP:LIMITED. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• North America – ‘British North America’ is more accurate.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• to Prince Edward Islanders – ‘to the Prince Edward Islanders’.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• province's coat of arms is a duplicated link.

• That is permissible at the first occurrence after the lead per MOS:REPEATLINK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• Unlink Canada (twice); United States; London – see MOS:OL.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• N The last paragraph is imo too trivial to include in an encyclopaedia article.

• I've included a similar paragraph in the other 3 Canadian flag GAs (i.e. flag of Manitoba, flag of New Brunswick, and flag of Nova Scotia). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but it really is quite trivial. The survey took place over 20 years ago, and the results come a self-published source. I can't see the information is relevant here, despite what other reviewers may say. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I intend to retain the paragraph, for the sake of uniformity with the other GAs and the fact that it does not contravene good article criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

2.1 Description

• Unlink fimbriation (dup link).

• Unlinked the third and final mention (but not the second which falls under the lead exception per MOS:REPEATLINK). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• itself is unnecessary and can be edited out.

• Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

2.2 Symbolism

• The Complete Flags of the World by DK is not an expert authority—it's an educational resource—so it’s not clear to me that the book's interpretation of the meaning of the three oak saplings should be included here.

• Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Royal Arms of England - 'Royal arms of England' is correct (in both the text and the caption).

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• The arms shown in the image date only from 1198 to 1369, after which they were changed. Readers might assume the arms have always looked like this, so I would add the dates.

• Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• is surmised – by which person or organisation?

• It's not clear. Ref 16 (from PEI provincial gov't) states that "while many consider the Red Oak to be the tree on the Provincial Coat-of-Arms, this has never been formally recognized." Would it be better if I changed the sentence to "is reportedly Quercus rubra"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would work well if you would kept surmised, and added a separate note that quotes the provisional government's position. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• it has not – ‘the species has not’ sounds better imo.

• Agreed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

3 Protocol

• Office of Protocol, specifically the Chief of Protocol – why not simply ‘Chief of Protocol’?

• Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• (MPs) is not needed, as the abbreviation does not reappear.

• Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Link casket.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unlink sunrise; sunset (commonly understood words do not need to be linked).

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• it is to be flown – I would amend this to something like ‘the other flag is to be flown’ for the sake of clarity.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

4 Notes

• Note A requires a citation.

• Already verified by ref 9. If you're referring to the second sentence of the note, the GAs flag of New Brunswick and flag of Western Australia employ multiplication and division without having to cite the process or result of the equation per WP:BLUESKY. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

6 External links

• (Not GA) the link isn’t helpful enough to use imo.

• Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

On hold

• I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 4 September to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The last three points to be addressed are marked with a small red cross, otherwise all sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue with the lead appears to be last remaining one. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The above issue has still not been addressed - the article will now need to be re-nominated if an editor wished it to be promoted, and any of the above issues dealt with as part of the next GAN. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Prince Edward Island/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this on, giving a customary @Amitchell125: in the event they want to chime in. Right off the bat, I can see that all the changes from the last GAN were undone for some reason; revert edits made for GAN that has now been failed – start with clean slate. I don't exactly understand why this was done and the page will quick fail if I have to rehash all the same suggestions that happened in GA1. Please let me know if there is a reason that revert was done, I won't go further unless there's a good reason or the changes are restored.

Note: I just came from a cluster at WP:ANI and I'm probably going to be a bit crabbier than usual, so please be patient with me. Etrius ( Us) 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: as far as I can see, the majority of the changes that were undone did not pertain to the six good article criteria, as they were minor stylistic differences. I cannot see why things like using "it" rather than "the island", or adding "the" in front of "Prince Edward Islanders", would warrant a quick fail, since the six criteria "are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail an article. All other comments designed to help improve the article are to be encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment" (my emphasis). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So, per the quick fail policy: A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.

I agree that many of the issues were superficial, such as WP:OVERCITE concerns but the reason the article failed last time: expanding the Lead (per MOS:LEAD), has not been addressed. I'd argue that the grammatical/stylistic changes fall under 1a and 1b criteria:

• The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
• It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I also see an unreliable source that was cut (criteria 2B). User:Amitchell125 did an excellent review and I'd rather not have to rehash all the work they already put into their review. Etrius ( Us) 16:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: My comment has been here for 3 days without reply. Giving a customary ping in the event this comment was not seen. Etrius ( Us) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: thanks for that. This page was not on my watchlist (now it is). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Due to a lack of activity on the page, and no steps being taken to resolve the aforementioned issues, article will quick fail. User:Bloom6132 has acknowledged the comments and been actively editing during the review timeframe but no changes have yet been made to this page. Before renominating the page again, please review Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures and please resolve the concerns brought up in GA1. Etrius ( Us) 16:11, 14 September 2022 (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.