# Talk:Coat of arms of Munich

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

I had to do a lot of editing to get this article's prose up to the standards. As a German speaker myself, I had a look at the  original article and found that there were a few minor errors with the translation. Furthermore, the translation was very unidiomatic. It is important to realise that the two langauges have very different styles and one must be adapted to the other to make it readable.
Here are a few issues that would have to be improved to go beyond the GA level:
1. In-line refs or footnotes need to be added.
2. More sources are needed. With only one source it isn't so clear if original research has been done or not
3. Coverage needs to be broader. The article is quite short and only has two sections. 
All in all though it's not a bad article. I just hope that ref has all that information in it! Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. 

The principal and obvious problem is that the article is almost totally lacking in inline citations. I have gone through and inserted these where I think they are needed and all these {{Fact}} tags must be cited with a reliable source before I can let this article remain a GA.
I strongly recommend that the Münchner Kindl article be merged into this one. This article is not long, and the Kindl only exists on the coast of arms, so it is a natural unification. Both articles would be much improved by having the information (properly sourced) provided together here.
The article does not clearly explain what the status of the monk embelem was between 1214 and 1808. Clearly it was known about and in use, but to what degree and with what legal status, if any?
Much more information on the use and evolution of the monk figure between the 13th century and the 19th.
The reference to the German Wikitionary is incorrect. This should not be considered a reliable source.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As creator via translation of this article I strongly agree. As a matter of fact I have already been considering how to work on those issues before you mentioned them. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for putting them forward. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Its good to see someone is still watching this. I'd much rather keep than delist, so don't feel pressured by the time limit, if you need more then just ask.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done
 Done WilliamH (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done It's now clearer. The point of it i.e. as seals was a means with which to prove the authenticity of munincipal documents. WilliamH (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done
 Done
Seeing as I'm very busy IRL, I would appreciate more time, cheers. WilliamH (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give more time, but I should mention that there will be some other concerns. Principally, a number of sections , particulaly towards the end of the article, are very short and should be expanded.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK I have provided much more information on how the monk changed, its notable one being the Kindl. The article is clearly much better than it was before you brought this to my attention, however the basis of this article is the German version (which on the German Wikipedia is listed their GA equivalent) and I unfortunately don't have the written literature to hand. I've padded out the Third Reich section a bit though. The timing of this is inadvertantly unfortunate, since I have exams coming up shortly which is of course rather pressing. I plan to be on a Wikibreak as of now, and to do so shortly after my best contribution is delisted is a pretty disappointing note to leave on. I've pretty much done all I can do though. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I haven't delisted yet, and if your still aorund to read this, the article is of a high enough standard now that I can hold off on the last few issues until you are ready. I will leave this as under review for the next few months, and let me know when you are ready to come back to it. Good work on tidying it up, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I have decided to pass this article, which has improved since I first reviewed it. I still think there is room for expansion and I do want you to sort out the citations (see below), but otherwise this conforms to the criteria quite well.


### Citations
The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the  title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:
<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref> 
As an example:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>
which looks like:

Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.
If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Coat of arms of Munich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091220040636/http://www.hdbg.de:80/gemeinden2/bayerns-gemeinden_detail.php?gkz=9162000 to http://www.hdbg.de/gemeinden2/bayerns-gemeinden_detail.php?gkz=9162000
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Coat of arms of Munich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516224346/http://steincollectors.org/library/articles/MKindl/MKindl.htm to http://www.steincollectors.org/library/articles/MKindl/MKindl.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917195644/http://www.bayern.de/Coat-of-Arms-and-Flags-.654.htm to http://www.bayern.de/Coat-of-Arms-and-Flags-.654.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)