Talk:Cubs Win Flag/GA1

GA Review

This is my first GA review so apologies if I cock it up in any way. On first glance it appears that the majority of any issues are quite minor, these I will fix myself and i will only bring up more major issues here. Basement12 (T.C) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   I'll take your word o what you'v said about the lead either being fully cited or not at all, I certainly don't think it's wrong to include citations in the lead and since this is only a GA review I won't be too picky.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Hard to do on an article about a "Win" flag, but mention of the equivalent lose flag (particulaly the image) does this i think.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   You've done very well to get such a wide range of images, particularly the image of the flag in the process of going up

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass GA

I have no problems passing this as a Good Article, you've clearly put a lot of effort in to finding images and references and have found out a bit more about the origins of the tradition as I requested. My only ongoing sugestion for further improvement would be that whilst the use of retailers websites to show alternative names is legitimate i'm sure it would be preferable to find some uses of these names in the media. Well done! Basement12 (T.C) 11:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• I've made a few changes, please let me know if you think any of them are incorrect in any way. I have a question regarding the other common names listed, why these two in particular? To someone relatively unfamiliar with the flag like myself they seem to have been arbitrarily picked from the possibilities with no explaination. Basement12 (T.C)

• I agree with your edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, the parts you were talking about make no sense, so I improved that a lil' bit.Petero9 (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted some of your edits. these points add color to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Detail

Apologies for the delay in my review, I thought it best to pause during the time that the aricle appeared as a main page DYK.

• This section seems mostly fine, I reordered it slightly to give the details on colur etc first my one slight issue is that the middle paragraph is completely unreferenced, I assume it is covered by one of the notes already given elsewhere?
  • Found new ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• It would be nice to know whe the flag is taken down again in preparation for the next game but judging from the talk page this is information that is not currently available? Its not crucial in any case.
  • I am trying to seek out sources. The Cubs Media relations office was suppose to send me some things yesterday, but they did not. I am neither sure I will be able to find a ref for the middle paragraph nor that I will obtain answers to our talk page queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

History

• The paragraph on the colour change launches into a list of retired numbers, this makes sense in the context of the colour change but that context should be established first. At the moment it seems to lose track of what its talking about before saying why its relevant.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The media guides also mention blue and white colored lights on the top of the scoreboard, which also appear in a photo here. The lights complement the flags by helping night time passersby learn the result of that day's Cubs game at a glance." — This should be replaced with something simpler removing further mention of the media guide and the reference to the photo in the text , make sure the relevant photo is next to the paragraph and the lights mentioned in its caption.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Since 1998, the flags have become ever more popular with demand reaching a level where they are sold at Wrigley field." — This seems out of place in its currentlocation, it should probably be placed with the other info on the flags bing sold i the "Detail" section. Basement12 (T.C) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General

• Regarding capitalisation – If you are capitalising the w in "Win" should the f of "flag" not also be capitalised, both in the article title and the text? Not every occurence of "win/lose flag" is capitalised. Also does the w in "White flag day" need to be capitalised?
  • I have tried to capitalize Win Flag but leave the word flag in lower case in the most recent edit. I hope I did not miss anything.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Images – the licensing all seems fine but i'd suggest including mention of the flag in the caption for the Navy Seal images. Basement12 (T.C) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is it possible to add more why the tradition started, was it simply to notify people walking by the stadium? Also who started it? I could fully understand if this info has been lost in the mists of time though.
  • I have added text that the lights were added for the Chicago 'L' passengers who were riding by. The flags serve the same purpose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Great. Might be interesting enough to add to the relevant Chicago L article as well (is it the Red line? I have a vague recollection of hearing Cubs v Sox refered to as the red line series).

Final thoughts - The article is generally well written, I found it intersting and it explained most of the things I wanted to know about the flag, and there are no major issues. Fixing the few things i've suggested here and resolving the couple of questions posed on the talk page about when the flag comes down should be fairly trivial tasks i'd hope. I will therefore give you a few days to make the necessary changes and then make my decision on whether it passes or fails. I will leave the review open, rather than putting it on hold during this time, as I wish to keep the invite for others to comment since i'm a GA review rookie. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Random quick hits from the_ed17

Hello, I'll help you out a bit Basement, seeing as it is your first. =) If you have any other questions, feel free to ask!

• Per WP:LEAD, it is desirable (but not required) to not have references in the lead. They should be mentioned and linked below, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.
  • I could use some help beefing up the WP:LEAD to two good paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My concerns from above still exist, but perhaps adding the fact that it is a letter W on a plain background and the colours would be a good thing to add. WP:LEAD says "one or two paragraphs" so i think in the case of this relatively short article one would suffice. Basement12 (T.C) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Better, but i'd still suggest removing the two emboldened alternative names unless you have reason for them being more commonly used than the other possibilities. Don't think there is any need for the citation in the second paragraph, per WP:LEAD, as its mentioned and referenced later in the article. Basement12 (T.C) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Everything in the WP:LEAD is cited in the main body, I believe. You either have a fully cited lead or fully uncited lead. Citing one paragraph and not the other is incorrect. Either you want my to remove citations throughout the lead or you want it fully cited. Which is it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not aware of any such requirement, certainly nothing of the sort is written in WP:LEADCITE. The first statement you cite "The Cubs Win flag is a victory..." is not mentioned explicitly again (its merely implied) but given that the source is an online shop I think its fine to remove all the lead citations. Basement12 (T.C) 00:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Trust me this is the commonly accepted interpretation of WP:LEAD. Either cite the lead properly or present the lead as if everything is properly cited in the main body. Try to get a WP:FAC promoted doing otherwise and you will find out quickly. Which do you want here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Per MOS:IMAGE, images should not be directly under section headings.
  • That rule is for subsections and not sections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't it for level three (===) headings and up...? —the_ed17— 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I'm right. However, level 3 and UP means going to level four headings (not level 2)!!! =/ Never mind! —the_ed17— 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• The 'References' section should be above the 'Notes' section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices.
• Rename the 'References' section to 'Sources' and the 'Notes' section to 'References'....this isn't required under any guidelines that I know, but as you can have separate 'Notes' sections now...
  • Sections are now named and ordered properly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! —the_ed17— 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)