Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elizabeth I of England/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 16:25, 10 December 2007.

Elizabeth I of England[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified Wikiprojects Anglicanism, Biography, British Royalty, England, and User:ALoan

An Emsworth classic, seems to have had a small effort at updating its references, but I notice one reference is not there, and it looks like more in-line citations and some copyediting are in order. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer it already appeared on the main page - I was going to suggest going full-tilt at buffing it up and getting it on the main page while the movie is on. Not in too bad shape but yes on the copyediting and inline reffing. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has the full support of WikiProject Anglicanism and we will do what ever is suggested to maintain this articles status. -- SECisek 06:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, it needs inline citations throughout, and secondarily, it needs some copyediting as it is now a very old Featured article. Judgesurreal777 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will get on it. -- SECisek 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of the following to article talk:

The article has become enormous (85 kb). I've moved all the lists of films, fiction, video games etc. to a new article Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England (crossed fingers it doesn't get deleted). I intend instead to add some good material about Elizabeth and depictions of her during her reign, using Strong, etc.

I've cut the section "Patrilineal descent". This is a recent and superfluous (in my opinion) addition, since we already have a family tree. You don't even get lists like that in the history books. We shouldn't be influenced into keeping it by the fact that these lists have appeared all over British monarchy articles. The "styles" section is another one you don't see in history books: those too are dumped everywhere, presumably by the one-man royalty project. qp10qp (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the bibliography down to a few good books. As I edit the article, the list will grow longer again, but with the addition of different books—the ones used to reference the text. In case anyone thinks this is a little drastic in the short term, I've listed the removed books on the article talk page where anyone can read it and check it against what I am doing. If you wish to add anything back, please be selective, because there are some dreadful books there (I suspect someone just pasted a list from a website). I am also going to change the format to author-first, and add more details about the books still listed. In the short term, one or two footnotes (not many, because most of these books do not seem to have been used to source the text) may be slightly stranded, but I will sort this out when referencing the information. qp10qp (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the list of historical fiction books and added it to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, if anyone wonders what I am up to instead of getting on with the good old business of citations, well, I can only say that before you can paper the living room, you have to move the furniture out of the way. This is always a good opportunity for a bonfire.) qp10qp (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section called "References". I looked the links and sources up and found them all to be not worth using (see article Talk page, whereto I have moved them). I have made a "Notes and references section", and the cites will refer to books listed alphabetically in the bibliography.

I've removed the section called "Style and arms". It is obscure, in my view, and you don't find this sort of section in history books or other encyclopedias. No doubt the royalty project will try to dump it back in the article; but if any of this material deserves a mention, it can go in the main text, in my opinion (having this random section after the "Legacy" section, seems to me anticlimactic and straggly). If you click on the "more" link above the infobox portrait, you'll find another horrid infodump by the royalty project; since it doesn't interfere with the surface of the article too much, I suppose I'll leave it (though it creates design ugliness in the infobox heading); these "more" links were added to all the monarchs a while ago and sit there like carbuncles. At least they help with the case for dropping the styles section, since they make the latter even more redundant.

By all means disagree with me; I've posted the section on the article talk page for scrutiny and discussion. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! Some more styles cruft removed, a stylebox template thingy in the middle of the article. I've posted this thing on the article talk page.qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope people won't vote yet. I've been working on the article for a week and will need at least two more before it is in shape (could do it more quickly if I didn't have a job and other distractions!). I will say here when I feel the article is possibly up to present FA standard. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report: I've been working on referencing for the last few days; I'm also rewriting, rephrasing, and shortening as I go and have got as far as the marriage section so far. I intend to re-cover my tracks a couple of times, to add density and variety to the refs. I'm leaving purely prose issues until last, and the refinement of the lead to the very last. qp10qp (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Most of "Foreign Policy" done now; will do the "France" section tonight. Should be all done by this time next week, other things being equal. qp10qp 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks qp, as ever. Marskell 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I suppose it can be voted on now. I still have some ordering to do on "Legacy", need to rework the lead, sort the external links, and will then give the article a couple of prose brush-ups. But I feel I have addressed the original issues of citations and copyediting, so the relevant work is done, I hope. qp10qp (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't even look like the same article now, its beautiful! Somebody give this man a barnstar for over 150 references added and tons of copyediting!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.