Comment I note that the image presented doesn't match the blazon in the description. For one, the blazon implies a violation of the Rule of tincture by placing a yellow sun on a white shield. The actual image, though, actually has a yellow sun on a blue shield bordered in white, which is allowable. The blazon also specifies that the stars form an equilateral triangle, which they do not in this image. Powers12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I'm aware of that. None of the source images (Image:Gerb gag.jpg, tr:Resim:Gagavuzya armsı.png) match the blazon either; you can quite clearly see here and here that the sunburst is always placed on a blue field. Since the blazon was translated into English (by the FOTW folks—I don't speak Moldovan), I'm unsure as to where the "white field" came from; perhaps it would be best to remove the blazon from the description entirely. The placement of the stars was indeed off by a few pixels, and has been fixed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do appreciate that the actual images in use also contradict the specified blazon; it's not so much a criticism of the image (which is fine) but of the description. Minor enough that I didn't feel comfortable opposing, of course, but it's something to be considered. Obviously the blazon text comes straight from Moldovan law, but if there is an explanation for the discrepancy, the description seems incomplete without it. If not, oh well; though an acknowledgment of the discrepancy would also be helpful for future viewers. (I also still wonder about the stars; moving the top one down seems to make the arrangement even less equilateral than it was before. Maybe it's my monitor's aspect ratio.) Powers19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I have found the actual Legal Code of Gagauzia and, although the translation is even less idiomatic (!), it does specify a blue field—apparently, the "white" was indeed a FOTW slip-up. I'll amend the image description accordingly. As for the stars, they do form an equilateral triangle in the existing images, but not as you probably expected (I did at least)—that is, with the center of each star being one vertex of the triangle—but like so. I'd gladly have arranges them with each star as one vertex of the triangle, but that would conflict with every existing image out there! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, things are starting to make sense now. =) Thanks for your research. I do agree that the existing images clearly show the stars arranged as you have them. What's interesting is that the stars on Gagauzia's flag appear to be equilateral in the sense I was expecting, even though they're described the same way in the Legal Code. Ah well. Nice work at any rate. Powers22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess I'm going to support. I don't feel like I have a good grasp of the scope criterion, but this almost certainly is the most valuable image within that scope and deserves at least some recognition. Powers (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the scope it is surely a quite narrow and specialized scope, but I still think the scope as such is useful for WMF projects (it is used). It also seems to be high quality work, which a lot of effort has gone into. I know nothing about coats of arms so I will abstain from voting. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
