Wikipedia:Featured article review/Royal assent/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 delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 1:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

Royal assent[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Australia, 18 December

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because as RD stated on talk, "This needs work to rise to current FA standards." The original nom has not edited since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: apparently saved it back in 2007, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Royal Assent/archive1. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, the differences in standards in 2021 vs 2007 are far more stark than between 2007 vs 2004. However, its an interesting topic and hope to reengage during this review. Famous last words, however believe this review is warranted. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering to work on this article. The review is open as long as improvements are ongoing; it can also be placed on hold if you'd like more time to make any changes. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the "other Commonwealth realms" section should mention the two refusals of Royal Assent in the 19th century in colonial Victoria (which occurred 150 years after the last refusal of royal assent in the UK - source here. Deus et lex (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, yes, in next week or so. However, would like to note that there is very little that is actionable in the nom, apart from somebody complaining about things on talk that probably fall under SO:FIXIT. Is that the extent of Buidhe's concerns, or are there more to come. Unsourced paras are one thing, but a number of the other criteria are subjective. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original notice posted by RetiredDuke stated,
There is significant unsourced text, particularly in the "Other countries" section. Malaysia and Thailand are mentioned once and never expanded upon. The Netherlands part is completely unsourced and the Spanish subsection is not much better. There are unsourced, stubby subsections like "Church of England Measures" and "In the other Commonwealth realms". The unsourced single sentence at the end masquerading as a section is conflating royal assent with presidential vetoes in European republican systems (!!!!), which is baffling considering the diversity of European countries that use the presidential veto.
I know very little about how royal assent has worked throughout history, so I am not necessarily well positioned to judge factual accuracy, comprehensiveness, or neutrality. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am now more in the dark than before regards expectation. The nom is the very definition of drive-by. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To restrict FAR to nominators familiar with the topic area is incompatible with the goal of reassessing ALL old FAs to see if they meet the current criteria or can be brought up to standard. The reason I nominated this article was that in the state it was in at the time, it clearly did not meet the FA criteria, and I am still seeing issues with uncited content and stubby short paragraphs. I hope RetiredDuke will chime in to comment on what he sees as outstanding issues with the article. I am not sure you are approaching this from the right direction, it is not a forum for editors to make specific complaints about the article and have someone fix them but to determine if the article meets the current FA criteria (do YOU think it does?) and if not, can we get it there? (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you mentioned no criteria, nothing actionable, just handwaving, expecting others to come along 1. interpreted and verbalize the short comings, (2) fix the "perceived" short comings (3) judge the updates against actual criteria. It seems like a whole load of "off-loading" to me; the sucks I know nothing was particularly disappointing, and again the very definition of unstructured, aimless, edit clocking, drive-by. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so. In my notice, I pointed out: unsourced paragraphs, the stubby subsections that looked like drive-by additions and should be harmonized/integrated into the relevant sections, and one thing that made no sense to me in this context (the Presidential veto paragraph). I see that Ceoil's copyedit has removed the extra small sections and has tightened the prose throughout the article. The veto thing has been removed and the article looks almost there in terms of citations. I'll help looking for sources for the sections that are still missing some (Spain and the Netherlands). Apart from that, the article looks (to me) close to the criteria now. I have stated in some notices that this or that older FA fails the comprehensiveness criteria, when I can see that something important is not covered in the article. In this case I cannot. I think that we must stick to actionable objections in our reviews. I have no further comments apart from the paragraphs that are missing citations. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure to have your input RetiredDuke. Have seen you around over the years, and agree on all points above as to what needs to done here. To note RD is compiling potential sources in user space. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of progress, with a only a few (3 or 4) remaining paras to be reff'd. Article has been further copyedited. Can we get say, another two weeks before voting? Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: How are things looking now? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should now move to voting phase. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's title is misleading. It suggests that readers are informed about an important event in the law making process in monarchies independently of time and place. Actually the article is mainly dedicated to Commonwealth countries with some remarks about modern constitutional monarchies. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be taken to FARC now at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, do you have a ref for the final citation needed tag? The first paragraph of the body can probably do with some merging of paragraphs.

No need to go to FARC if almost everything is sorted. If an article is fixed at FAR, we simply close the review here, and keep the star. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear, the article does not meet all FA criteria. 1b. It does not provide a picture about the idea and practice of royal assent en general, but about royal assent in major Commonwealth contries, with random sections dedicated to modern monarchies. 1c. It is not well-researched, because the books/articles cited are mainly about royal assent in the UK. 2b. Its structure is not appropriate: lengthy sections about the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guersney, two sections about "Development". Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, article has improved, but concerns about comprehensive and tight focus persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be in favour of trimming further. This seems to be a better structure[2]. Ceoil (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Its structure is better, but the article does not cover its title. The article provides information about the development of the institution in England, and about present practices in the UK, other Commonwealth realms or in randomly selected countries of the world, but it does not provide a general picture. The article suggests that royal assent is something very English/British, although it existed in most feudal and modern monarchies of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article does not meet basic FA criteria (1b-1c, 2b): it fails to present this basic institution of medieval and modern monarchies (instead it presents royal assent as a primarily British royal prerogative, emphasizing its development in England, making random remarks about modern monarchies). ;Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist at this point. Dont have the time or energy to address further, alas. Ceoil (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, sorry that Ceoil can’t fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, unfortunately it doesn't look like there will be further progress. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.