Talk:Flag of the Cayman Islands/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

Infobox and lead look good.
There needs to be consistency with mdy or dmy dates.

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a template for their usage would also be preferred.

I'm sorry, I'm not very sure what you mean adding a template for usage. Does the "Use" line (in the infobox) and the Usage column (in the variant flags table) suffice? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we using British English? If so, change "utilized".

I thought British English uses -ise. I've changed the second use of the word (which used -ize). —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive sources, either manually or with this tool.

I actually tried archiving refs 5 and 9 (from Caymans' gov't) back in May, but they are unable to be displayed. Neither can the Google Books page scan for ref 8. The remaining un-archived sites (BBC and Britannica) do not suffer from link rot. But the CIA World Factbook has changed format recently (resulting in dead links), so I've added an archive URL for that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest wikilinking websites in citations.

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can categories be sorted in alphabetical order?

Sure – done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I could find. Great work!

Images are free-to-use.
Article is broad in its coverage.
It's stable and neutral.
Sources are reliable.

@Some Dude From North Carolina: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. Also, may I request that promotion be held off until after July 6, 00:00 UTC, when this article finishes its Main Page appearance at DYK? I just want to make sure that any edits made during this time are compliant with GA criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·