Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buckingham Palace
A third nomination. This still looks good to me. I have re-read, and I hope the objections to the two previous nominations (here and here) are addressed. Still mostly User:Giano's work. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Changed one of the archive links above so they point to the two separate nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This is very good. The writing's excellent, it's comprehensive and interesting, and it's nicely illustrated. A couple of points: I'd like to see inline citations or more footnotes, as I see there's only one, and it's always good to see some sources as you're reading the text. I'd also like to see some mention of Diana's death and the crowds that gathered outside the Palace, with the tabloids stirring up rumors saying people were about to storm the walls. The mood was certainly ugly at one point, and I think that may have been a unique event in the Palace's history. I'd also like to see the red links deleted, as they make the page look untidy. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Very happy to see that a plan has been added since last nomination (I remember being told that it couldn't be provided due to "national security" or somesuch before). Could possibly do with information about the permanent staff. Morwen - Talk 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Well written, informative article. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Nice article. Ben Babcock 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very well written. I'll add a spoken file to it soon. Craigy
(talk) 04:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) - Support, a comprehensive and interesting read even though I have no clue what a spendthrift is. Could you add the external links that source the single father incidents in the footnotes or reference sections and maybe split website and books (in the reference) in the process? (Don't forget to add the time they were retrieved.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Lots of good information. Rentastrawberry 16:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Although clarification for the sentence However, it is not universally admired, and was voted the fourth ugliest building in London in March 2005. is needed. Who voted, what kind of poll was it, and perhaps provide a source for the Palace's ranking. Phils 18:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The article was elegant before, like all Giano's work, and it still is. Actually I liked it better before, when it had normal (=lower-case) spelling of words like king and queen used as common nouns (i. e. not as titles). I don't want to spend the best years of my life embroiled in wiki spelling wars, but a sentence like "the new King was rather less taken with the ornate palace than his late brother" looks simply odd to me. (The Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta are on my side.) Bishonen | talk 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object Contains an image with an unacceptable copyright, Image:Buckthroneroom.jpg. Ideally we'd like to see images created by wikipedians, but we are not showing the best we have to offer by featuring something with an image that is about to be deleted. Otherwise this article does a great job of featuring photographs taken by editors... Gmaxwell 02:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Well-written and informative. However, I second SlimVirgin's suggestions about citations; I'd like to see more footnotes.
Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:32 (UTC)
- Regarding the footnotes: I and "an other" are looking at this, the problem is quite what is the best way to achieve it, most facts on the palace are easily checked, where I have thrown in an oft repeated story for interest's sake i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt in the Blitz and the Sheik barbecuing in his bedroom, I think it best to state instantly in the text that this is just part of the palace's folklore so there is no excuse for it being taken as undisputed fact. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)