Talk:Flag of West Virginia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	One statement lacking a clear source, see below.Fixed
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Is the flag codified in law? If so, that would be a main aspect that needs to be mentioned.Issue addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Issues that need to be addressed for the GAR:

• There is a reference to the flag being approved by joint resolutions. Is the flag codified in state law? If so, the chapter/section/code where the flag is covered needs to be included. (If yes, this needs to be included. If no, then a sentence should be added saying so in the article, if a reliable source can be found saying so.)

Article II Section 2-7 of the West Virginia Constitution entitled "Montani Semper Liberi" -- State seal governs the present seal of the state, with its motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" but the Article does not mention the flag. The West Virginia Blue Book states on page 760 that the flag was laid out by Senate Joint Resolution No. 18. I'll continue to see if the current flag is codified elsewhere in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll pass this article because I can't find anything with a Google search, but it seems odd that the state wouldn't codify the design in law. AHeneen (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the "Desecration" subsection, the following sentence lacks a clear citation: "However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression."

I've removed the this last sentence, as it was added my another contributor and I'm unsure of where this information was obtained from, as it's not in the two Supreme Court decisions. The remainder of the paragraph is sourced by United States Reports Supreme Court decisions. -- Caponer (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• At the beginning of the "1907 flag" section, the quote "wholly impracticable" needs a reference at the end of the quote. Who/what said that?

"wholly impracticable" was the exact wording used in West Virginia Code Chapter 1, Section 9, which is internally-cited as being on page 5 of Hogg's West Virginia Code, Annotated (1914). I've paraphrased this as "completely infeasible" to avoid usage of the quotes, but the inline citation remains at the end of the sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Previously, it wasn't clear what the source was because there was (and still is) three citations at the end of the sentence. AHeneen (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Other suggested improvements:

• The Seal of West Virginia is wikilinked in the "Design" section. Per MOS:SEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."
  • I've removed the See also section. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also added insignia to Template:West Virginia as well. AHeneen (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The reverse of the 1905 flag should be included. If a suitable version isn't available, at least include an image of the coat of arms that was on the reverse. If the coat of arms at the time was the same as the coat of arms pictured at the beginning of the "History" section, then that image should be moved and placed adjacent to the 1905 flag image, with an appropriate caption.
  • It is unknown which version of the coat of arms was placed on the reverse of the 1905 flag. It was most likely similar to the obverse of the West Virginia state flag from 1907 to 1929. I'd like to hold off on placing an image of a coat of arms version here until it is known which version was actually on the 1905 flag. -- Caponer (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• The following statement doesn't make much sense:

"In 2001, the North American Vexillological Association surveyed its members on the designs of the 72 U.S. state, U.S. territorial, and Canadian provincial flags. The survey found the West Virginia state flag to be barely out of the bottom 20 flags, as the association's members ranked it at 51 out of the 72."

What exactly does this mean and what is the importance? The criteria of the survey should be made clear. A short description of what the society does could be included, for example: "In 2001, the North American Vexillological Association—an organization devoted to the scientific and scholarly study of flags—surveyed". In my opinion (not that I'm saying it should be removed), "barely out of the bottom 20 flags" is fluff and not necessary.

• I've removed the fluff, and added a little more context from the source. Frankly, this tidbit had been added before my expansion of the article, and I would be fine with striking it completely. -- Caponer (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Consider changing the layout of the images, in particular consider aligning an image or two on the left. The coat of arms, US national emblem, and 1905 flag are stacked on the right side of the page in my browser (full width of the screen, which is 1366x768). The same conflict happens with the infobox and coat of arms in the "Design" section.
  • I've repositioned the images a bit to provide more harmony throughout the article's layout. I've left the images on the right side further down in the article as there is less space conflict in those lower sections. -- Caponer (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Incorporate the date of statehood into the "History" section for perspective, but I don't have a good suggestion of how to do so. A "See also" hatnote linking to West Virginia in the American Civil War in the "American Civil War" section should be added. History of West Virginia#Separation should be wikilinked at some point where statehood is mentioned.

AHeneen (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've incorporated the year of statehood into the History section's lede, and I've incorporated the full date of statehood in the American Civil War subsection with a link to the separation from Virginia section of History of West Virginia. I've also added a details see also hat note linking to the West Virginia in the American Civil War article. -- Caponer (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• AHeneen, thank you for taking the time to conduct this thorough and comprehensive review of this article. I'll be addressing these items one at a time. I'll notify you once I've completed my final response. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • AHeneen, I've addressed each of your concerns. It looks like the only outstanding concern is the actual code for where the state flag has been codified. So far, I can attest it isn't in the constitution, so thus far, I just know the Senate Joint Resolution number in 1929. Let me know if you see any other issues or if you have any other questions. I really appreciate all your assistance and guidance throughout this process! -- Caponer (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Pass AHeneen (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

AHeneen, thank you tremendously for taking the time to complete this careful review. It is very appreciated and it has been a privilege working with you throughout this process. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)