Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Flag flying days in Norway/archive1

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

The list was not promoted 19:54, 2 May 2008.

Flag flying days in Norway[edit]

Selfnom. I would like to nominate this list as it is modelled completely after Flag flying days in Mexico which is a featured list. It meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria IMO. Inge (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All points are referenced and it is stable as there is a fixed number of flag days (until a Norwegian royal dies or is born). The list also is exaustive with regards to former flag days and peripheral subjects such as half mast rules.Inge (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I'd open with something like "This is a list of flag flying days in Norway." before going into regulations and resolutions.
Any chance of expanding the lead beyond the short single para?
Go with WP:MOS#Images for guidance on sizing. In Safari, the second flag, the State Flag, spills over onto the table. Could you use a {{double image}} template instead?
And no sign of the Sami flag you mention in the lead either.
"...flag will be flown ..." surely "is flown..."?
Some of your motives have full stops, some don't, I suggest none should, they're all sentence fragments.
Also seems little point in forcing the column and table widths, there's a lot of empty space on my screen.
Remove the space before ref 2.
Moveable dates ought to be referenced.
I'd highly recommend the use of {{Cite web}} for your notes rather than plain linking.
The References section looks more like External links (since you're not using them in the article) - if you're using them as General references, consider having a level two "References" section with subsections "General" and "Specific".

Some work to do before I can support here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

I'm not too familiar with Norwegian, but I don't think the GeoCities references counts as reliable sources. Could you possibly find more reliable sources than those? Gary King (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The references to the cite hosted at GeoCities by mr. Hoelseth are reliable. They are direct translations of Norwegian law material. His site is even used as further reading or cites by among others this web page from the University of Oslo. Inge (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Orlady (talk · contribs)

To me, the double image of the two flags looks awful. If the table width were not forced to 90%, there would be plenty of space for images to the right of the table.
Terminology is confusing. The text refers to the "state flag and the merchant flag" but the caption describes the "national flag" and "state flag." If multiple terms are used, the relationships should be explained.
The Sami flag also should be included as an illustration, since it is mentioned in the lead.
Which is "the Flag day of the Sami people"? Is it 6 February (mentioned in the table) or some other day, such as 15 August, or does this refer to all of the dates listed in Sami flag? (The current text is unclear.)
In the introduction to "Full staff", explain that the flag is flown at full staff on the birthday of a member of the royal family.
Could the introduction to "Former flag days" explain the reasons why flag-flying days are removed from the list? Clearly, one reason is the death of a royal, but I cannot tell what caused the still-living princesses to be removed. (Explain.)
- Apparently the princesses were removed because they "left the Royal House." I am not well versed in the laws related to the Norwegian monarchy, so it is not obvious to me what it means to "leave the Royal House", nor what occasion caused these particular princesses to be removed from the list. Does an engagement announcement or a marriage cause them to "leave the Royal House"? (Additional explanation is needed here.) --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The table heading "Motive" does not communicate effectively to the American-English reader. A better choice for American readers would be "Occasion", but I'm not sure if that is as meaningful to speakers of British English.

--Orlady (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected most of the comments made. I don't think the lead can be expanded much. Of course I can find something to fill it with if that is very imprortant for FL, but I think that might be counterproductive. The appearance of the double image is a matter of taste IMO (one commenter is for and one is against), but if it stands in the way of reaching FL I will change it as quickly as possible. I have added the sami flag in the table. I don't think it is appropriate to have it in large as noone is required to fly it on any day and this list is about days the state inst. are required to fly the Norwegian flag. Again if it is seen as a requirement for FL I will amend it. "Motive" is the one used in the other FL list and if either suggested word might confuse one or the other I feel its best to keep it.Inge (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and of course thank you for the helpfull comments and tips and the help with the table :)Inge (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Motive" is also very problematic in the article about Mexico's flag flying days. "Motive" has multiple connotations, but for most native speakers of American English the primary connotation is criminal intention. A substitute term is needed. Options could include "Occasion," "Purpose," "Commemorates", or "Occasion observed or commemorated." --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:
Inline source citations are needed in the intro for "Article 4 of the Regulations concerning modifications to the regulations concerning the use of the state flag and the merchant flag" and "Royal Resolution of 3 December 2004."
Is it necessary to use the convoluted locution "Article 4 of the Regulations concerning modifications to the regulations concerning the use"? Would it be possible to reword that to something like "Article 4 of the regulations concerning the use of the state flag and the merchant flag, as modified by Royal Resolution of 3 December 2004"? (I can't read Norwegian, and I don't want to alter the meaning...)

--Orlady (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments. I have taken them all on board. I now believe I have adressed all comments made except the format of the images. I don't have a preference either way. Having them side by side lessens the problem of which one to have on top though. Is the list FL now? :-) Inge (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kpalion (talk · contribs)

The nominator has done a lot of good job. I made some additional minor corrections, partly addressing some outstanding issues raised in other users' previous comments. The list is close to FL, but I think there are still some things that need to be done before I can fully support it:

Expand the lead (criterion 2a). Suggestions: briefly explain the difference between national and state flags (even Flag of Norway fails to do that) – who normally flies which flag? Is it usual/legal for regular citizens to fly the state flag? Is it usual/legal to fly the national flag on other days than the ones listed here (it is illegal in some countries to fly the national flag outside official holidays)? Do people actually own and fly flags on flag days? Are the birthdays of Royal House members their actual birthdays or just official birthdays (they're not the same in some monarchies)?
Cite sources of law (criterion 1c). I'm sure that in Norway, like in other countries, an act of law must be published in an official gazette to come into effect. Providing links to websites with legal material, no matter how reliable, is helpful, but not enough since websites are not an official source of law. Please add numbers and/or publication dates of the gazettes that the relevant acts of law were published in.
Norwegian names of the holidays. Not absolutely necessary, but might be useful. There seems to be enough space.
Problem with Pentecost. It's pipe-linked to Whit Monday. The list in Flag of Norway says Whitsunday. So which one is a flag day? Whit Sunday, Whit Monday or both?
Date of the election day. Flag of Norway says it's the second Monday of September every 4 years. It should be relatively easy to find a source for this and then put it in the list.
Delete the list from Flag of Norway. Otherwise the existence of a separate page for the very same list may be questionable (criterion 1a). Replace it with a simple link or a short summary style paragraph.
If the burial service of a non-royal person connected to the institution occurs on a flag flying day the flag is lowered to half staff until the burial service is over. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. What institution?
The three living princesses have left the Royal House in connection with their marriages. This looks like a direct response to Orlady's question above. Without the context of this discussion, the reader will not know who the three living princesses are. And someone will have to update this sentence whenever one of them dies. It would be better to substitute it with a more generic description of a general rule (e.g. "princesses leave the Royal House when they get married").
If we have "from" and "to" dates for the deceased and former Royal House members, then could we also have "since" dates for the current ones?

— Kpalion^(talk) 17:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.