Talk:Flag of Rwanda

Aspect ratio?

The CIA World Factbook says that it's a nearly 2:1 aspect ratio. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Question

What does the 24 sun rays in the flag mean? 41.186.78.217 (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The person who disingen

the Rwanda national flag 41.186.78.2 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

French and Rwanda

Hello!

@Villanator: About this edit I am not certain why this was done. French is still an official language in Rwanda. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen talk 22:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Flag of Rwanda

• ... that the flag of Rwanda (pictured) depicts the sun illuminating the country's lush vegetation?

• Source: Smith, Whitney; et al. (17 May 2002) [16 February 2001]. "Flag of Rwanda". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Germany–Samoa relations

5x expanded by Yue (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 20 past nominations.

Yue🌙 07:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

• Expansion, date, hook, qpq checks out. Image free on Commons. Earwig tool down, but no close paraphrase detected in phrase google spot check. --Soman (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Rwanda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yue (talk · contribs) 07:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and, on a cursory inspection, close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high, so I feel it is worth persevering even if there is a risk of failure due to a potential copyright violation.
• It is of reasonable length, with 1,617 words of readable prose.
• The lead is relatively short at 188 words. Suggest expanding.
• Authorship is 86.9% from the nominator with contributions from 55 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
• The Wikimedia link is flagged as not matching Wikidata. Please check.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Please replace one instance of "large" in "Large flags flown at national ceremonies should be presented in the same way as large flags flown outside government buildings, but their dimensions differ."
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Please look at "The adoption of the new flag was criticised at the time by some Rwandans" in light of MOS:AWW.
   • Please look at the voice of the article from the view of word choice (and WP:EPSTYLE, MOS:INSTRUCT etc). Examples include "Anyone may put the flag on a medal, but the flag must not exceed a size of 140 mm × 210 mm (5.5 in × 8.3 in)" and "an individual found guilty of disrespecting, denigrating or damaging the national flag faces a sentence of 6 to 12 years in prison, a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 Rwandan francs, or both".
   • Please look at the caption title of the picture of Paul Kagame in light of MOS:PEOPLETITLES.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • The layout is unusual with subtitles for the sources. Suggest using a single alphabetical list of sources from the options in WP:CITESTYLE. I feel that this will aid readers and avoid uncertainty of classification (for example, the BBC News website is listed as a "News article" rather than "Websites", Encyclopædia Britannica is a website rather than a book, the US government's Area Handbook for Rwanda is a book rather than a government publication. The alternatively could be valid).

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are books and credible websites.
   • Government documents are used extensively.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Nyrop 1989 calls Grégoire Kayibanda "the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government" rather than "one of the coup leaders".

   • Spot check confirm Lemarchand 1970 and Streissguth 2007.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 62.5% chance of violation. This needs to be fixed.
   • There is a 42.9% similarity with a website constitution project.org. This paragraph is identical: "The flag comprises the following colours: from bottom to top a green stripe, followed by a yellow stripe both of which cover half the flag. The upper half is blue and bears on its right-hand side the image of the sun with its rays of golden yellow. The sun and its rays are separated by a blue ring." Similar phrasing is also found on publications from the Rwandan government. This needs changing.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Streissguth 2007 states that the flag was "designed to symbolize unity patriotism and hope." Suggest this is worth including.
   • The section on Display and handling has detail on the way the flag should be handled.

Is there any information on the reality?

1. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is very detailed but generally compliant.

2. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced, with the Rwandan view being represented well.
   • No comment is made of the popular view of the flags that were used before independence. Is this available?
   • It finishes with a statement of views on the flag (mentioned above). Can this be changed to avoid undue weight?

3. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • Rwanda Flag Against Light Blue Sky.jpg is a Flicrkr image that has been reviewed and has an appropriate CC tag.
   • The remaining images have appropriate PD tags, including US tags as appropriate.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are extensive and appropriate with suitable captions. The range of flags displayed is impressive.

@Yue: Thank you for an interesting article. The copyright violation needs to be fixed urgently. Otherwise please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thank you for your review so far. I will remedy the issues highlighted and give a sufficient response afterwards some time today or tomorrow. A quick note though, I suspect Earwig is returning my direct quote of the Rwandan constitution. Cheers and I'll update you in a bit. Yue🌙 15:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yue: That is very good news if so. I look forward to seeing your edits. simongraham (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Howdy again. These edits should address the issues you brought up other than the neutrality bit. I will add more information on views on the old flag, but what did you mean by changing the ending of the article to avoid undue weight? Perhaps removing the criticism and keeping opinions on the flag out of the lead would suffice? The pro-flag change opinion isn't really covered beyond the government's decision itself. Also, I double-checked Earwig and I am quite certain the high returns of plagiarism are just mirrors of the passage quoted appropriately from the Rwandan constitution. Cheers and hope to hear from you soon. Yue🌙 02:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yue: That looks excellent. I am not sure that reducing the length of the lead is necessary and removing controversial information from the body may mean it no longer can "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" per MOS:LEAD. I suggest adding different views is more helpful. I look forward to your edits. simongraham (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: My recent changes. In terms of balancing the viewpoints, there wasn't much more out there, and I don't think there is much more to say, about the symbolism of the old flag aside from its official symbolism and critics' association of it with the Rwandan genocide and Hutu supremacy. I'd argue that the positive view that contrasts its association with genocide and supremacy is the old government's official view, which stated that the flag represents national liberation, peace, hope, optimism, etc.

I also added and then moved the current flag's intended symbolism (per the designer) of the flag to just before its criticism in an attempt to balance that portion.

I think these changes address your concerns adequately; what do you think? Yue🌙 16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I do too. That looks excellent work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.