Talk:Monarchies in Europe/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there is a separate heading for Commonwealth realms in the Current monarchies section. It is a one-sentence paragraph (also to be discouraged) and really could be added to the previous paragraph.

There are no references in the European microstates section. This should be addressed.

The article is well-written, images are good, the table adds to the article in my opinion. There is an issue with dead links the references section. Refs [10], [11], [16], and [17] are all dead and will need to be repaired.

I was left wondering if there are any concerns with succession of any of the current monarchs? For example in Japan the royal couple have had girls but no boys and they are a male primogeniture culture, which has left the status of the monarchy in crisis (my information is a bit dated so the crisis may have passed but you get the idea). It would an interesting tidbit if there were crowns in succession jeopardy. I won't hold the article from GA over it, just a suggestion.

At this point my primary issue is referencing, the European microstates section needs in-line citations and there are some dead links that need to be fixed. I will hold the article for a week and notify interested projects and editors. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been notified that the primary editor for this article, User:Nightstallion is on vacation until 8/23. I will extend the hold until the end of the month the hopes that either Nightstalker or another editor will be able to address this review. H1nkles (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead to add that commonwealth realms part to the UK section (also saw no need to have it separate) & fixed up the links (removed 1 dead and found the other 2 in the archive sections in the respective websites). Removed the last link since it mentioned the same poll result as stated earlier. I'll leave the last remaining issue (in-line citations for the European microstates) to others to work on, at least for now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from vacation now, but will still be rather busy the next few days, so if someone else has the time to add a few citations, that would be great. —Nightstallion 06:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Is this article ready to finalize the review? I haven't looked at it in quite a while and I don't want to proceed unless I have gotten confirmation that either the work is finished or there is no one who will pick up the work to complete it. Please advise. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still rather busy, but am in principle willing to add the missing citations in the microstates section; everything else has been addressed as far as I am aware. —Nightstallion 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a few US DoS references; are those sufficient or should I go looking for more? —Nightstallion 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a note: H1nkles has been inactive for about a month, so in the interest of closing out these GARs, I'm taking them on. It'll take me a while to read through the discussion and comment, but I hope to get back to you soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to add to H1nkles':
- We really do not need flag icons in the lead. Cut them out and just make the list prose.
- Remove all the bolding in the body sections used to highlight the countries (WP:MOSBOLD).
- I'm still concerned about some of the referencing; for example, the article asserts the Vatican is a theocracy, but I do not see where that is referenced in the body.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Regarding the refs, see http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Theocracy#The_Vatican for one, but I found that to be an obvious statement not in need of reference...? —Nightstallion 14:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you mentioned is a mirror of Wikipedia, so it's no good for sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a non-mirror. I think the statement that the Vatican City is *styled* a theocracy is really obvious, but if you feel strongly about it, feel free to remove it. —Nightstallion 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a source. It's not like this is an article clearly related to the Vatican, where I would have different expectations for readers... considering this is all about the monarchy, I prefer to err on the side of WP:V :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. How about http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_theo.html ? —Nightstallion 08:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, referencing... current ref 9 ([1]) is a now-dead Geocities link, and wouldn't count as a WP:RS anyhow. Also, what makes [2] a reliable source? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish link was not to reference a "hard" fact, just the "soft" fact that abolishment of monarchy is not considered impossible in Sweden... It wasn't a very good source, though, and I suppose the line of text doesn't really add much to the article, so we can remove it, if you want.

We can use http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/lichtenstein?profile=politics&pg=7 instead of lowtax.net, if you want. —Nightstallion 08:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a much better source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nightstallion 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. As that addresses my concerns, I am passing the article. Thanks for your hard work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly; thanks for helping to improve the article! —Nightstallion 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.