Wikipedia:Featured article review/James II of England/archive1

James II of England[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland, and Scotland. Sandy (Talk) 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older featured article, nominated with no discussion, a relic of the brilliant prose days. While it is not a bad article, it fails to meet two FA criteria.

1. (b). This article is not comprehensive. While the life of James II is indeed well-covered, the "Legacy" section is woefully inadaquate. There is no discussion whatsoever of different ways different groups of academic historians have seen James II. Which brings us to the second problem: sources
1 (c) The sources used here are severely lacking. Furthermore, the good sources cited are not properly used. We have two dated secondary sources, one general "bio" website and the EB1911. James II by John Miller, a good source, is not properly used. For instance, though this book discusses James' views on religious toleration and the way his subjects reacted to it (they saw it as insincere), this is not treated at all. Moreover, this article is almost entirely lacking in inline citations. In order to bring this article up to current FA standards, it's going to need to properly use books like James II by Miller and a lot more of them (see Miller's bibliography)

I'm not trying to be mean to the participants here; it's just that FA standards have (fortunately) risen quite a bit since this article was written. --Zantastik talk 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and the style of good writing mentioned above is characteristic of all the old EB-based articles , and probably all of thems that are FA should be reviewed and , unless much rewritten, removed. Reason: 1(c) DGG 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Needs inline citations, obviously, but also major copyedit: what is the strange table and the cryptic 'Issue' section? 'Miscellaneous' = trivia = not encyclopedic, remove. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, diff since nom. Sandy (Talk) 14:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness and sources. Joelito (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove See my comments in the Review commentary section for my reasoning. --Zantastik talk 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - absolutely not enough inline citations.--Aldux 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Per Lucifer and Aldux.--Yannismarou 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove needs major rework: not comprehensive, weakly referenced, virtually no inline citations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]