Talk:Flag of Italy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The new flag of Italy, the file Image:Flag of Italy.svg, seems quite strange to me. I've never seen a green-gray-red Italian flag.--Panairjdde 07:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not gray, it #FAFEFF which is a very light shade of blue (and sucks). Paulatz 18:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that the file history is a mess. And I don't dare to make corrections :) Theoretically there are the three "official" Pantone colors and the problem of approximating them with RGB. But considering what happened in Italy about the Pantone colors themselves... I guess you know... :-s BTW, have you seen the comment by Alessandro Martinelli that I reported in the article? --Gennaro Prota 20:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Popular and state flag on sea?

I don't see the versions of the flag for use on sea for state and citizen-owned ships. If they're the same as the main flag, the image should be FIAV 111110.svg; if not, the additional flag should be presented. Duja 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Check section Italian Republic, and you will see that the merchant flag (I mean, "the flag for use on sea for state and citizen-owned ships") is the military one without the crown.--Panairjdde 16:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The is one more difference beetwen the militar and civil (private) sea flag. In the militar one the lion (the simbol of Venice, one of the four ancient nautical republic) hold a sword in hid hand, in the civil (private) version the lion hold an open book. -- AnyFile 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


What are the colours? The current description about colours is no good to an HTML/CSS coder. Could someone please fix the colours, i.e. provide proper X11 colour names and/or rgb codes? Thanks, MureninC 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No official X11/rgb colours have been issued. The flag is green/white/red, with the textile version coded as written in the article.--Panairjdde 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the colours

The description of the meanings of the colours is quite in contrast to what is on the itlian wikipedia. Red and white come from the french flag and in general, the adaptation of the french flag is a manifestation of the napoleonic and jacobian ideologies at the time. The green is the colour of the padanian (milan and surroundnig area) guard's uniform. Today Green is still the color of the political secessionist party Lega Nord whose leader is the controversial Umberto Bossi. All Lega Nord deputies as a matter of fact wear green ties.

I have a theory that the colors of the Italian flag comes from the color of Milan (green), Sicily (white) and Venice (red) but I'm not entirely sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"True" Flag of Italy

I changed the flag image, because this one is more close to the real one, which has "white" as central stripe.--Semioli 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't support your edit. There is an ongoing discussion on Wikimedia Commons about the opportunity to choose which actually is the "real white" in the Italian flag, so please discuss there about the issue rather than here. By the way, I think there's actually no visible difference between the two versions, so I wouldn't even see the need to discuss the issue. --Angelo 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I do. What is happening of Commons is a matter of Commons. Since Commons provides two versions of the flag, we should/could select the one we prefer. IMHO.--Kwame Nkrumah 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, since you're probably just another sock puppet. :p ¦ Reisio 07:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you like to discuss edits. Reverted, maybe this will teach you something (I doubt)--Kwame Nkrumah 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The image issue was resolved. I am going to sleep but I suggest that whoever switched the image from "Flag of Italy" to "True Flag of Italy" switch them back. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Republic flag

Why is the flag of the Italian Social Republic not mentioned or included in this article? It has an image hosted here. --NEMT 18:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it, I guess. ¦ Reisio 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I'm unsure which section to place it in, or whether it should have its own. --NEMT 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages :) Don't worry, we've got your back. ¦ Reisio 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


HI i am brianna i am doing italy for a report and I am unsure what section to place it in or whether it should have its own

Wikipedia isn't a place for homework help, but... sure put it in its own section. ¦ Reisio 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

The article currently uses the spelling tricolor in some places and tricolour in others. It would be preferable to employ a single spelling standard for the article. Funnyhat 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the text showed a mixture of British "colour" and US "color", therefore I adopted the British spelling for the sake of uniformity. This is obviously subject to dispute and, in case the US spelling prevails, all related words must be changed at the same time to avoid repetition of the previous situation (mixed spellings). Markmct (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


The article seems to contradict itself. It states that the Cispadane Republic was the first to use the Italian flag, in 1796. Then it says that the Repubblica Transpadana used the flag in 1796 with the Cispadane Republic adopting its flag in 1797. So, which was it? I've done a bit of digging but this isn't my area of expertise. - Eron Talk 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Pantone" flag

I removed the "Pantone" flag because the central stripe is not white, as requested by Italian Constitution, but a strange color with no reference to the conversion from the Pantone code. In fact, Image:Flag of Italy.svg has a white stripe. Minartih (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I was mistaken. However it looks like this color has no consensus on commons (in that case it should be included in the Image:Flag of Italy.svg)

In other words, there arn't two different version of this flag, but only one, Flag of Italy.svg. --Minartih (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken (again), but regardless that would be Commons' problem, not ours, and this would be the wrong talk page to discuss the matter. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, give at least some hints of your reasons. And yes, this is a problem even here, because you are claiming somenthing without any proof. Minartih (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What is it you think I'm claiming? ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You, Reisio, are claiming that official Italian flag isn't full white but it is gray-white. This is simple false. You know perfectly, that it is false. So shut up. Stop inserting false flag anywhere.

You, Reisio, do not observe the rules of consensus and do not provide sources for your claiming (even the source for the image says that you are wrong).

So I can reasonably think that you, Reisio, are only a troll, isn't it? Or I'm wrong? -- (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: If you use Pantone color finder] with the official code prescribed here (11-0601TC) you get the description Bright White.-- (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"You, Reisio, are claiming that official Italian flag isn't full white but it is gray-white."
Nope. I've done so in the past, but that is not relevant to this image and this situation.
"You, Reisio, do not observe the rules of consensus and do not provide sources for your claiming"
"So I can reasonably think that you, Reisio, are only a troll, isn't it? Or I'm wrong?"
Indeed, you're wrong.
"If you use Pantone color finder] with the official code prescribed here (11-0601TC) you get the description Bright White"
Far out — what of it?
¦ Reisio (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is fully protected for three days due to ongoing edit war regarding this issue. You're all encouraged to find a clear consensus either in support or against inclusion of the "Pantone" version flag, and please be civil. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Angelo, though I guess actually there's little to discuss: as we all know the Italian flag is green, white and red, and there's no way to confuse white with pale gray, as long as one's in good faith of course... :) Blackcat it (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's merely a depiction of something that was already described in the article. I can wait three days to put it back — after five baseless and irrelevant claims for its removal, I'd be mildly surprised if any of you can think up a new one in that time. Kind of interesting that you participated in the edit war before protecting the page, Angelo... ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If no consensus is reached, I might extend the page protection. And if you reinsert the flag with no consensus, I am forced to notify you at WP:AN/I with possibility of a long-time block for continuous disruptive behaviour. My lone "participation" to the edit war is given by the revert of your latest edit, which was by the way a potential break of WP:3RR. In any case, as stated in the disclaimer you can find at the top of the article, protection is not an endorsement. --Angelo (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Something like 15 people edited the page after I added that image without touching it. Two people (excluding you) then contested it (in successive silly ways). That is not consensus against inclusion — if you think it is, you don't know what consensus is. Notify anyplace you like, logic and policy is on my side. I'm familiar with 3RR, and no, it wasn't even close to a potential break. Your misinterpretation of 3RR or outright delusion or whatever it was, however, still doesn't explain your reversion of my latest edit. Acknowledging your participation isn't an explanation. What, you revert people that you think are about to break 3RR? That makes no sense. If protection isn't an endorsement, why didn't you just protect it without reverting? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so:

  • 3RR: here are your four reverts, [1], [2], [3] and [4]. How do you call this?
  • Saying 15 people edited the page after you before the issue rose up is not a valid excuse. Maybe they just didn't notice it, or they just didn't know about the issue.
  • Your latest edit was reverted by me because you're currently the only user supporting the inclusion of the Pantone-like flag version, whereas 5 users (4 in this talk page + 1 who reverted your edits without to join this discussion) voiced their opposition to feature it into the article. That's all. --Angelo (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"How do you call this?"
I call it an admin that doesn't know policy. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states:
"Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing."
"Saying 15 people edited the page after you before the issue rose up is not a valid excuse."
It's not an excuse at all, just a fact. People don't edit pages to let others know they approve of existing content — that would require an alteration of the same content, and make little sense.
"5 users…voiced their opposition"
Nope. One brand new user, Minartih, opposed it, but admitted he was mistaken, then came up with another inaccurate claim, then went completely irrelevant. Two anonymous users posted in this section, yes, but not on anything relevant. Blackcat it didn't comment here until after your protection (though he did nominate the image for deletion on Commons, and his message on your talk page is almost undoubtedly why you involved yourself here — I was aware of these actions, but not obliged to respond in any particular way here). That leaves only Valepert, whose claim, "it isn't the italian flag", was completely and hopelessly irrelevant (there are, after all, twenty-two other flags on the page in question, and only one is presented [albeit vaguely] as the official one). That's practically just one user, with an irrelevant non-justification.
¦ Reisio (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What? This is wiki? So I'm not relevant? I'm not relevant because I'm not registered? This is wiki? So I repeat: source provided by Reisio says that Reisio's flag is not related with the real appearance of a real Italian flag. Simply Reisio's flag is a pure Reisio's fantasy... simply he never watches a real Italian flag, so he has no idea, about what he is speaking... Pantone colors are only for cotton (says government, not me), so, my dear troll Reisio, take a Pantone's coloured cotton flag of Italy, and take a photo (if you want to use Pantone's colours, otherwise pure white is the color, no other ways)...

The excuse that you are right, and just one user says that you are wrong, is simply false, a real mystified statement... I say, that is the typically assertion of a typical troll... -- (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're relevant, just not to this discussion, as you haven't presented anything relevant to the matter at hand. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Brand new users have the same right to participate than well-established ones, even IP users. About 3RR, you did not technically violate it, but some of your edits seems like a tentative to game the system, a possibility which is explicitly described in WP:3RR, and additionally you're repeatedly violating a key behavioural guideline such as WP:POINT. What you're actually expected to do, dear Reisio, is to give a valid answer to the concerns shown here (I think the point above about the cotton-only Pantone colours is very relevant). --Angelo (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but given the sockpuppet experience I've had with a related issue in the past, I give them very little weight, particularly when they're wrong, and admit they're wrong, and then proceed to make up new excuses. I didn't even remotely come near to even partially technically violating 3RR — give it up. I'm not interested in proving a point at all; if any of you can give me a decent reason to not revert removal of that image, I won't — you just can't, because there isn't one. Concerns? As I already pointed out, I gave a valid answer to Minartih and Valepert, and no one else has asked a valid question. The comment about the cotton, while completely irrelevant, is also completely irrelevant. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The wrong user here seems to be you. Not a single user supported your edits, this is a fact. And please respect other user's opinions rather than rejecting them under claims of being them irrelevant. You're not funny. --Angelo (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reisio, the reason why there are 22 flags is because all of them, in different ways and epochs, were official. For one, there are currently 4 official flags of Italy:

The others are no longer official, nonetheless have some reason to appear, at least for historical purpose. But yours has no reason to stay in the article. Moreover, I didn’t comment here because my goal is not to discuss whether such flag should be here (it’s a false flag, never existed and even less used, so there’s no discussion about that), but to get that false flag deleted, or at least have its name changed in something that qualifies it as a “false flag” and kept out from this article. Seriously, none of us would picture an American flag with 49 stars and 11 stripes, or with pale gray and purple stripes… Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 9:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The image in question is sourced from a tangible piece of current Italian legislation and is completely official. What's more, this depiction is explicitly discussed on the page already — some of the others are not. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I say everywhere on commons (now I'm going to say here too), flag with Pantone colours is correct only for real textile flag. Other images of the flag must have same colour effect, that means full white, not gray-white. Flag with gray-white is simply a false Italian flag. I don't understand why Reisio continues with this dummy dispute. I'm really bored. -- ELBorgo (sms) 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you don't know much about our flag image collection — you're basically saying many of them are incorrect. White shades don't magically get special treatment, and even if they did...wait for would still be irrelevant to this situation. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed this seems the typical case of I Didn’t Hear That… -- Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat it (talkcontribs)

You just scrambling around looking for any WP: page you think might be able to be hammered into this situation now? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, personally I think there is a clear consensus against the inclusion of this particular version of the flag. I am going to unblock the article, but I am ready to block it again in case of another edit war. --Angelo (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you like, I'll take it to arbcom or the like. Opposing the inclusion of an image that accurately depicts something described in the text is nonsense (it actually refers specifically to a flag that uses Pantone colors that match to those used in the image in question, I'm not talking about where the text generically refers to "flag of Italy"). It's of course even more nonsensical when no relevant justification is given…but I digress. If you don't like, or don't care, I'll just re-include the image forthwith, as such action would be well within the bounds of consensus, Wikipedia policy, and the purpose of Wikipedia in general. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No takers, then? ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you have just been ignoring me — very well. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
STOP FLAMING —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talkcontribs) 200801090255

Reisio, your interpretation of the Italian flag utilizing a program that allows you to construct the flag utilizing the Pantone colors is (according to the above discussion) the incorrect interpretation due to the constraints of the electronic software. Bright white (11-0601) cannot be replicated electronically. This website mentions that issue, and features the Pantone color 11-0601 as the first color on the page. The color white cannot be reproduced perfectly in fabric (there will always be some sort of flaw), which is why the Pantone color appears offwhite in electronic reproductions. It is quite clear that no one agrees with the inclusion of the Pantone color flag, so do not add it to this article, unless you decide to change the middle band of the tricolor to #FFFFFF white.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bright white (11-0601) cannot be replicated electronically."
Pantone disagrees with you, and it's their system.
"which is why the Pantone color appears offwhite in electronic reproductions"
...or it could just be an off-white color.
"no one agrees with the inclusion of the Pantone color flag"
Read up.
¦ Reisio (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussions elsewhere suggest otherwise. The Pantone colors are for fabrics, not electronic reproductions from what I've seen. If the Italian tricolor is green, white, and red. The article even states "official Pantone textile colours" which would mean that your electronic reproduction would be correct for a textile reproduction. No other reproduction of the Italian flag prior to your upload utilizes the Pantone color that appears offwhite in an electronic reproduction. The article at the Italian Wikipedia uses hex white (#FFFFFF) in its representation of the Pantone white. As such, all of the discussions show that the consensus is that your representation should not be included in this article, because of the way the Pantone white is represented in your image.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It also appears that this discussion has been made at the Commons and at the Italian language Wikipedia. At the commons, it is mentioned that Pantone textile colors do not translate well into the hex color system.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the claim that the color (#f1f2f1) depicted in the "off-white version" is actually not white? Because, this could be considered original research and WP:SYN. —Random832 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is Web colors#HTML color names. White (according to HTML) is #FFFFFF.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are, in other words, synthesizing from the information in the web color list and the information in the italian constitution, to make a claim that has not appeared in a reliable source, that the center stripe of the flag must be #FFFFFF. —Random832 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The center band of the tricolor is "Bright White" in textiles. Textile to RGB in Pantone's color matches in this case makes "Bright White" off-white. The version of the flag that Reisio has made was the result of a dispute at the commons that he brought here, and attacked other users in the process. Even if synthesis is wrong, that middle band is not white visually. It is gray. The contrast can be seen against Wikipedia's normal white background.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The main concern that was brought to my attention by the Italian users is that while the law says X, what they see and are told in reality at Y. So, I did some digging. I was notified about a PDF file from the Italian Gov't. This was a use on how to use a logo of a government ministry. This was using the colors from 2003 until 2006. These used darker colors than what it is officially used now. Even when looking at the document, which had Pantone, RGB, Hex, CMYK, etc. the white section is still FFFFFF. And this is with the darker shades. I also found a color guide from the Italian Ministry of Defense; they also said to use #FFFFFF for white. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, my argument about WP:SYN applies equally well to the use of that pantone color finder; and I hope it can be settled now that Zscout370 has an actual source specifying #FFFFFF explicitly for the flag. However, "not visually white" is a matter of opinion. It's closer to #ffffff than #ffffff is to itself on many different monitors I've used are to each other, or than my preferred brightness/contrast setting is from someone else's. Whatever the conclusion ends up being; as a complete outsider I think this is very WP:LAME. —Random832 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This PDF file is from the Italian Government on how to use a tourism logo. On Page 21 of this document, this lists the colors used in the logo. On that page, it says the colors of the national flag are used here and are given in a few forms, including RGB and Hex. I do know that the Pantone shades as pointed out in our article are not mentioned by word, but I believe it is something to digest. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Italian Fascism

Flag of Italian Fascism

I have came across a flag in the Wikicommons that claims to have been used during the period of Fascism in Italy (i.e. 1922-1943). I wanted to know if there is any factual and real basis for that claim? and if there, maybe someone could add an external link that will establish this claim. thanks in advance --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do see this a lot, but I am going to have to do some research. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Though I based the image off of a poster, this picture of the March on Rome shows Fascist marchers holding flags, including one flag in the upper right corner of the image where the bottom portion of a fasces is visible in the centre white stripe of the flag.
I based the image off of a propaganda poster, It was very difficult to find, but it shows two flags, one which has a fasces on it. The other which is the flag of the Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) which is being held up by a fasces which is acting as a flag pole. The poster was meant to demonstrate the change from fascism as a movement to fascism as a government. The colours of the fasces are based on those shown on the poster. I uploaded the file originally under "Flag of Italian Fascism" which is a bad choice of words, because the Italian Fascists used a variety of different versions of fasces on flags and symbols. I uploaded the same file under the name "Image:Italian Fascist flag.svg" which is probably a better title. Italian Fascist flags with a fasces in the centre of Italian tricolours do exist, as shown in a picture I have just posted here from the March on Rome in 1922 where the bottom portion of a fasces can be seen on the centre white stripe of an Italian tricolour which is being held by one of the marchers in the upper right corner of the picture. Also I want to make clear that this flag was not a flag of Italy, but is a flag of the Fascist movement--R-41 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Oren neu dag (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. Overall, it needs some adjustments, mostly in prose, to become a good article:

  • When sentences begin with a chronological reference add a comma after it (e.g. "On 15 April 1861,").  Done
  • Jacobian → Jacobin  Done
  • civic guard → gendarmerie
    • Comment. Guardia civica milanese translates as Milanese civic guard, not gendarmerie.
      • I thought it was the same, but if it's not, nevermind.
  • "Some have tried to attribute some particular values to the colours" → "Particular values have been attributed to the colours"  Done
  • In the Napoleonic era section, does the sentence "In 1805 Napoleon installed his sister, Elisa Bonaparte Baciocchi, as Princess of Lucca and Piombino. This affair is commemorated in the opening of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace." add any value to the article?
    • Comment. It is well known and captures a sense of the events; so although not directly relevant, I do think it adds context to the story. Bearing in mind also, as you have noted below, the scarcity of English language sources. I have expanded the footnote to include the (first part of the) quote. Is that better?
      • OK. For a GAC it's not that worrying, but it might be subject of questioning if this goes to FAC.
  • "newly-formed" → "newly formed" (in Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) section)  Done
  • Though still correct, perhaps "Flag protocol" or simply "Protocol" might suit better as a section title than "Etiquette".  Done
Manual of Style
  • Remove all "The" from section titles, as per WP:THE, and uncapitalize non-proper nouns (e.g. "Italian Independence wars").  Done
    • There's more titles to fix. I just picked this one as an example among many others.
References and citations
  • Only two inline citations for the "Italian independence wars" section?  Done
  • "Article 12 of the Italian Constitution states:" — give source.
    • Comment. Article 12 of the Italian Constitution is the source. The date of promulgation is also given in the same sentence.
      • I know it is. I think it be helpful to just add a ref tag pointing to reference no. 1 (the constitution).  Done
  • Can't some references be translated to English? Especially those that do not have links.  Done
  • Nothing related to copyright, but I noticed that Image:Sala tricolore reggio.jpg is uncategorized.  Done
  • Place individual images at the beginning of sections, so that text can flow around them, and galleries at the bottom. Or better, try to place an image as closest as possible to the text that mentions it.
    • Comment. Images are placed evenly and (where applicable) to display in order and as close to the related text as possible. There are rather a lot to fit in though and to avoid overcrowding (and blank spaces) this is not always directly above the text as it appears in the edit window. It works well at 1280 x 800. Is there a problem at other resolutions?
In my resolution (1024x768), the "Risorgimento" and "Presidential standard" sections have a huge chunk of blank space because of the positioning of the individual right-aligned pics and the galleries.
In the "Napoleonic era" section you could replace the photo of the waving flag (put it the "Protocol" section) with the more context-suited "Sala del Tricolore" photo, and place it at the section top. Also, move the flag gallery to the section bottom.
In the "Risorgimento" section, you could divide the gallery into two image groups, the first following the fourth paragraph (about the provisional government of Sicily) and the second group at the bottom.
The Kingdom of Italy's flag could be moved to the top of the next section, followed by the royal standard image.
The eagle-bearing socialist flag could be placed in the respective section (even though it will be "pushed" down by the previous section's images).
In the "Presidential standard" section, move the flag to the top and the gallery to the bottom.
All in all, the major problem is that there are too many images for not that much text to envelop them. I this organization removes the excessive blank spaces at this resolution and promotes a better relation of the textual info with the graphics. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)  Done
  • The "Italian Social Republic (1943–1945)" sub-section is too small to be a section of its own (two sentences). Can't you expand it more? If not, perhaps it's better to incorporate it totally in the parent section.  Done
  • On the opposite side, "The Italian Independence wars" sub-section is pratically 90% of the "Risorgimento" section. I don't think it necessary for this to be a sub-section, if there are not other sub-sections.  Done

I think that covers most of what I was able to see. If the nominator can fix these, I'll gladly pass this important article. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at a few easy things to fix and will address your remaining points over the next couple of days. Is that okay? Chrisieboy (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Taking into account all the changes you've made to this article, following my suggestions and comments, here is my final evaluation:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    This is enough for this quality level, but beware that this element will be critical during a FAC.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    If possible, try to reach an even better organization of the images along the article. If you think you need to take images that are not that necessary and do not decrease the article's value, please do.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Congratulations. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Chrisieboy (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)