This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Comment: Unfortunately, you didn't really follow my advice earlier. You need to massively cut down this draft to only focus on what secondary sources state, and remove the majority of the MP comments (which is just the British Parliamentary Endorsement section retitled). Most of the background history can be removed, other than perhaps an explanatory sentence. Remove anything that isn't directly associated/mentions/relevant to the campaign. qcne(talk)12:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have tagged this article as needing more sources, and in particular, needing sources with significant coverage.
I haven't looked at all the sources, but from what I have looked at, hardly any of them even mention "Mission Marigold", let alone have significant coverage of it; and the one I saw that did talk about Mission Marigold was not independent.
It seems to me that the sources currently cited do a good job of verifying that the marigold has become a symbol used for this purpose; but that is not what the article purports to be about.
An article about Mission Marigold should be a summary of what independent sources have published about Mission Marigold, and almost nothing else. Such sources, if they exist, will undoubtedly talk about the significant of the symbol, and the article could summarise what they said. But in an article about Mission Marigold, sources that do not mention the campaign group are irrelevant and should not be cited or used as sources.
I think this article should be repurposed to be about the development and adoption of the symbol of the marigold, and (on the basis of the current sources) the campaign should get just a passing mention.
Tagging @Poppyandmarigold. ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Unfortunately, you didn't really follow my advice earlier. You need to massively cut down this draft to only focus on what secondary sources state, and remove the majority of the MP comments (which is just the British Parliamentary Endorsement section retitled). Most of the background history can be removed, other than perhaps an explanatory sentence. Remove anything that isn't directly associated/mentions/relevant to the campaign. qcne (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)