Talk:Flag of Botswana

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 Botswana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 48JCL (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 15:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Files

• File:Flag of Botswana.svg Y
• File:Flag of Botswana (construction sheet).svg Y
• File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg Y

Article

• Three images are a bit too much in an article of this size. Perhaps we can do without the Union Jack: it has no direct relation with the current flag, it has not been an influence on its design, and most people should be familiar with it anyway.
• "Race is a very important feature of the flag", that's not the best way to phrase it.
• "It was designed in order to contrast with the South African flag at the time when apartheid was in effect." First, link to Flag of South Africa. Second, how exactly did they contrast? Was it for the absence of the controversial Union Jack within it?
• "The black band with the white frame has two meanings. They represent the harmony and cooperation between the people of different races who live in Botswana, as well as the racial diversity of the country." Aren't those two meanings basically the same?
• "The blue is associated with the sky, and water which is scarce". Link to Climate of Botswana
• "Bechuanaland gained independence from Britain in 1966, and the new nation was renamed to Botswana. The new flag was first hoisted at midnight on 30 September 1966, the day Botswana became an independent country." Seems that we lack a lot of content between those two sentences. Who designed the flag? Was there any discussion over the themes for it? How was it made official? Which was the reaction to it?
• "Preceding to its independence, the country did not have its own flag. It was designed to be distinct from the flag of South Africa, due to the country’s apartheid system." Already said in "Design". Also, keeps things in order, don't jump back and forth between colonial and independence times.
• "You need permission from the government to fly the flag". Don't write in second-person, see MOS:YOU.

Overall, the article is way too short for its topic. It is barely more than a stub, and requires a lot more work. Even the cited references have plenty of extra information that the article barely even suggests. Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 18 July 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.

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 Botswana/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Splains (talk · contribs) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: HaphazardBinBag (talk · contribs) 11:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Splains I'm picking up this review. This is my third review and I prefer a collaborative rather than prescriptive approach to these, so if there is anything you disagree with please let me know in the relevant discussion so we can reach consensus. HaphazardBinBag (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Restarting this review after significant changes to the article. The original review can be found here and is based on this version of the article. This restart is based on this version of the article. HaphazardBinBag (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• @HaphazardBinBag -- I've addressed all your comments. Please see below. Thank you. splains (💬/📝) 05:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @HaphazardBinBag-- I have once again addressed your comments. Let me know if you think this article is ready for GA promotion. splains (💬/📝) 17:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
    • @HaphazardBinBag --Once again I have completed everything. Let me know if you think this article is ready for GA promotion. — splains (💬/📝) 17:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
      • @HaphazardBinBag --Just a followup. — splains (💬/📝) 19:26, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• @Splains: I have completed the final portions of the review and will update it to reflect that the Article meets the GA criteria. Thank you for your patience and assistance in getting the article to GA. I have been advised by a GA mentor that some of the suggestions I made went beyond the GA requirements, so have tried to be mindful of that in my closing remarks. If you have any feedback or comments for me please do leave me a message on my talk page. HaphazardBinBag (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Overview

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Article has undergone changes to meet this.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All claims have an appropriate inline citation

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All claims have an appropriate inline citation

   C. It contains no original research:

   All claims are backed up by sources and unsourced sections have been removed or edited to meet this.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Any issues have been edited to remove any copyvio

   Earwig's score is very low at 2.9%

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Overall the article does a good job of covering the major aspects of the topic to comply with this and there isn't any obviously relevant information present in the sources I have checked that should be added.

   Not a GA requirement, but there is scope to mention:

   The legislation around the flags' use as a vehicle pendant

   The 2004 amendment to the 1966 law changing the name used to describe the blue

   George Winstanley's statement that he designed the flag to be easy to draw and any other pertinent information from his book. (see source#1)

   The Flag was first flown in January 1966 before being officially adopted on the day of Botswana's independence

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The article does a good job of not getting off topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article does a good job of maintaining a NPOV

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Yes, no edit waring etc.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images all look good

   File:Flag of Botswana.svg Y

   File:Flag of Botswana (construction sheet).svg Y

   File:FIAV 111000.svg Y

   File:FIAV normal.svg Y

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are appropriate and have suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article meets the GA criteria

Notes

General

• Add List of flags of Botswana to also see section (not a GA requirement)
• Previous GA review Talk:Flag_of_Botswana/GA1
• Previous version of this GA review

Prose

• check complete
• From the lead:
  • which also sets protocol for usage of national symbols including the flag. - As noted in the old review, the act does not set out any protocols of usage.
    • Fixed
  • ...throughout the ethnic groups. - redundant
    • Fixed
  • ... who served in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. - redundant
    • Fixed
  • Removed wiki link to rain/rainfall MOS:OL
    • Thank you
  • It was adopted in 1966 to replace the Union Jack following its independence from the United Kingdom. Move to end of lead along with The flag was designed by George Winstanley, a British colonial administrator and then copy-edit for conciseness and clarity.
    • Done
  • In the lead section, the type of blue does not need to be specified more than once, after the rewrite of the "historical context" portion, check that you are happy with the starting part of the lead and CE if necessary.
    • Alright done
• The flag's design is defined in the Botswana Emblems Law, - using defined is a bit strong as the law needed to be clarified by the Bureau of Standards, I would stick to outlined or established.
  • Done
• , which sets design protocol for national symbols including the flag, - this isn't needed in the lead as it's just a summary of the overall article.
  • Alright, done
    
    

• From design and symbolism section:
  • The azure blue background represents water and rainfall, a resource crucial to the agriculture of the arid nation - Please provide the relevant excerpt from source#1 for this claim, since source #2 does not mention the importance
    • "The blue background of the flag represents water – vital to the country's agriculture - and the black central strip bordered with two white strips represents racial harmony", and "the importance of water in an arid country such as Botswana."
  • It was designed as resistance to South Africa's apartheid system; American vexillologist Whitney Smith believes that it does so due to the black and white stripes contrasting with South African segregation policies at the time. - I have rewritten is as: The flag's adoption was a symbolic rejection of the system of apartheid, where its themes of racial equality contrasted with policies of racial hierarchy seen in South Africa and Rhodesia at the time.
    • Thank you
  • As a symbol, former president Festus Mogae believes the flag is "a symbol of [the Batswana[a] people's] fortitude and confidence... [their] very existence as an independent and sovereign people."
    • As a symbol,.. - is redundant
      • Fixed
    • Why has the statement been edited?
      • For conciseness
        • Reading over this I think the edits add undue weight to the Tswana people particularly as it is wiki linked. This contradicts the idea of harmony between with all Botswanan people. I would suggest to leave the quote intact to best comply with WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Open to your thoughts on this.
          • Changed wikilink to "Motswana" since that is also a denonym used for Botswana residents
            • Looks good, happy that this complies with GA criteria
    • I think this should be changed to: When talking about the flag in 2003, former president Festus Mogae described it as: "a symbol of our fortitude and confidence in ourselves, our very existence as an independent and sovereign people."
      • Changed
  • The flag is one of few African flags that do not use the Pan-African colours featured on Ethiopia's flag. - Will add thoughts
    • Alright
  • Use of Template:Poem quote is a nice touch.
    • I stole it from the Boot Monument article
  • Edited construction section for clarity
    • Thank you
      
      

• From Protocol and usage section
  • A formal request must be sent to the Permanent Secretary to the President of Botswana in order to fly the flag. - as previously noted this is too broad, making the statement inaccurate - it only applies to:... local companies, enterprises etc. and is specified as applying to: Companies, Organisations and other Independent Enterprises that are not part of Government of Botswana.
    • Fixed
  • The National Emblems Act also formally declares the flag's design...
    1. This is redundant
       1. thanks for removing it
    2. The name of the act is: The Botswana Emblems Act Law, 1966
       1. Oops
          1. I've gone and looked up how the Botswana parliament cites there own legislation and in this case it should be cited as: The Botswana Emblems Law, 1966 - Will update the citation in the article and other mentions
  • ...and establishes protections for national symbols including restrictions on unauthorized reproduction or misuse. - Where is this coming from as it is not mentioned in either source. Putting restrictions in place and allowing for regulations to be made at a later date that could put restrictions in place are not the same thing.
    • Spelling - British English would use: unauthorised
      • I see you have taken care of this. Thank you
  • Commercial use of the flag of Botswana requires approval from the government's emblems usage service. - source says: A formal Request is sent to the Permanent Secretary to the President.
    • Thanks for fixing it
• Preparing my own edit for this section.
• Edited this section
  • From: A formal request must be sent to the Permanent Secretary to the President of Botswana in order to fly the flag. The National Emblems Act also formally declares the flag's design and establishes protections for national symbols including restrictions on unauthorized reproduction or misuse. Commercial use of the flag of Botswana requires approval from the government's emblems usage service. Applicants must submit company documents, product samples, and usage details. Officials review requests individually to protect the emblem's integrity.
  • To: The Botswana Emblems Law establishes broad protections for national symbols covered by the act, including the national flag, empowering the President to regulate its use or the use of any device resembling it. The application must include company documents, product samples, and usage details.
    • Thank you
      
      
• Prohibition of desecration
  • Section 91 of the Botswana Penal Code criminalizes the defamation, ridicule, or public contempt of designated national symbols, including the national flag. Under this statute, the act of insulting these symbols through spoken words or published writings constitutes a statutory offense. Conviction under this provision carries a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding P500 (roughly US$37).
    • criminalises
      • Fixed
  • Have rewritten this as: Section 91 of the Botswana Penal Code criminalises any acts, spoken words or published writings that intentionally insult, mock or cause destain for some designated national symbols, including the flag. Conviction under this provision could result in a fine up to P500 (roughly US$37 as of 2024).
    • I have left the first citation in place but it doesn't seem to have an active purpose? I would remove this unless you want to use it to expand the section.
• Flag of convenience
  • Nice - made some minor copy edits
    

• History
  • Made some edits for clarity

Sources

• Source Check: based on this version of the article:

  Checked against WP:RSPS & WP:NPPSG

1. No access - Book "Under Two Flags in Africa"
2. Checked - looks like a good published source
3. Old Verstion checked - book from Dorling Kindersley couldn't find this version online but have found an older version from 2008 which seems to have the same information
4. Checked, no consensus - Encyclopædia Britannica
   1. By the way, most GA and FA flag articles use the Britannica source since the flag articles are written by vexillologist Whitney Smith
5. Checked - Facebook post from Botswana's Government's official page - As it is essentially a public breif/statement from the government, I don't see anything wrong with its limited use.
6. Checked, Whitney Smith - Encyclopædia Britannica
7. Great source
8. Checked - Government source
9. Checked - Botswanan Government website
10. Checked
11. Checked - Botswanan Newspaper
12. Checked - Government source
13. Checked - Botswanan Newspaper
14. Checked - Botswanan Newspaper
15. Checked - no clear consensus but its use here seems appropriate
16. Checked - BBC
17. Checked - Botswana government newspaper
18. Checked - Canadian (local) Newspaper

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.