Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Poland/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Flag of Poland[edit]

Selfnom. I believe this article meets all FA criteria and has all that a featured-quality article about a national flag should have. It was already an A-class Heraldry and Vexillology article before I substantially expanded and improved it. — Kpalion^(talk) 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose. The article leaves much to be desired. Overall, the prose is at a rudimentary level, far from the usual Wiki FA professional (or semi-professional) standard. The same facts are repeated ad nauseam challenging the reader’s intelligence (for example, the phrase "colors are white and red..." "white and red", "white and red…"). The paragraphs are stubby and dry, many without inline citations. The lead does not prepare the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections. Also, the elongated Table of Contents with uninteresting and uninformative titles leads to nagging mysteries, like "Flag protocol". What is the flag protocol if there’s none? – Many themes are treated with one-liners, or worse, only bullets… BTW, the bullets make some of the subsections plainly unacceptable as not comprehensive enough. Many references have no retrieval data and no names of authors nor the titles of their publications. The article as it stands should not have been submitted here at all. --Poeticbent talk 07:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. There are still paragraphs lacking inline citation. May I suggest obtaining WP:GA status before going for WP:FA?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The standard of the text, especially the introduction, does not meet criteria 1a on quality of prose. I believe this needs looking at by a different copyeditor to bring it up to standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain.davies (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with the other users. I am working with the user to clean up some of the sentences and dealing with citations. I honestly felt the lead was talking a lot about other national symbols and not just on the flag. The lead also mentioned some derivatives of the flag, which I added to it. Gruntbrat (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.