Wikipedia:Featured article review/Royal Assent/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 00:27, 23 April 2007.
Royal Assent[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Talk messages left at Emsworth and Law. LuciferMorgan 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Messages left at UK notice board and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Emsworth classic, which needs more inline citations, proper image tags and a fixing of the section noted for worldview problems. Judgesurreal777 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify what needs citations and why?
- Peter Isotalo 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are currently whole paragraphs without citation, which could use at least one, maybe two per paragraph. They are needed because in-line citations are a current standard for Featured articles, so all articles past and present are held to present standards. :) Judgesurreal777 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless they are self evident, like the sun is hot, then yes they do :) Judgesurreal777 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are currently whole paragraphs without citation, which could use at least one, maybe two per paragraph. They are needed because in-line citations are a current standard for Featured articles, so all articles past and present are held to present standards. :) Judgesurreal777 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FCOL - do we have to have this same argument every week? The relevant policies (whichever page they are on this week) say that there should be specific inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged - not for information that is not "self evident". Plenty of information is not "self evident" but is also not likely to be challenged on any reasonable basis, and so does not need a specific inline citation. HTH HAND :) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, don't argue with me, as you say people have argued this intensely, and it was decided that inline citations are needed because its current featured article status. Judgesurreal777 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FCOL - do we have to have this same argument every week? The relevant policies (whichever page they are on this week) say that there should be specific inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged - not for information that is not "self evident". Plenty of information is not "self evident" but is also not likely to be challenged on any reasonable basis, and so does not need a specific inline citation. HTH HAND :) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "don't argue with me"? It takes two to tango, you know.
- You said that this article "needs more inline citations" ... "at least one, maybe two per paragraph" ... "[u]nless they are self evident". With respect, I believe that that is incorrect as a general principle. As far as I am aware, it most certainly has not been "decided" (by whom? where? when?) "that inline citations are needed" as a general matter, save, as I say above, where there are direct quotations or facts that are likely to be challenged. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are required in FAC, they are required here. I gave that as general advice, since it was not one or two particular phrases that were unsourced, but many. Judgesurreal777 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because FAC has a fixation with dinky footnotes does not mean that we have to repeat the error. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bulk of all footnotes at FACs are demanded by people who don't know the topic or have little or no experience with footnotes outside of Wikipedia. But most importantly, the vast majority of those footnote counter will never, ever read those references. It would be ridiculously easy to fly completely bogus facts in, intentionally or not, under the radar with all that grand dinkiness.
- Most citations in review processes tend to be "required" for completely random statements and for some inexplicable reason figures and statistics (which are actually a lot easier to verify then prose statement) are always seen as harder facts and therefore requiring more footnotes. One of the worst arguments, but still one of the most common, is simply "I've never heard of this, and I added a fact-tag, so now you have to cite it; that's policy so don't argue with me."
- Peter Isotalo 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are required in FAC, they are required here. I gave that as general advice, since it was not one or two particular phrases that were unsourced, but many. Judgesurreal777 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that this article "needs more inline citations" ... "at least one, maybe two per paragraph" ... "[u]nless they are self evident". With respect, I believe that that is incorrect as a general principle. As far as I am aware, it most certainly has not been "decided" (by whom? where? when?) "that inline citations are needed" as a general matter, save, as I say above, where there are direct quotations or facts that are likely to be challenged. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and images (3).
Comment: Leaving aside the 1c debate, this article has serious problems in terms of TOC, stub sections, non-formatted notes etc. Marskell 11:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c and also the article concerns highlighted by Marskell. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On HOLD
Removeshort stubby sections, mixed reference styles, external jump, unformatted references, blue-linked URLs in footnotes, poor prose ( ... though it was used by Swedish kings when they ruled Norway (see, for instance, under Wikipedia article "Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905.") ) and weasly statements like "Scholars have discussed circumstances" and "Some legal scholars have suggested ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Remove largely uncited, non-formatted footnotes, stubby sections.Jay32183 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment If certain reviewers would be as excited about improving fairly minor errors in old FAs as they are about peeling the stars off of them, FAR would probably be a bit more respected. But then again, I'm sure it's far more thrilling to flaunt one's opinions about real or perceived deviations than it is to actually roll up one's sleeves and do some proper editorial work. Peter Isotalo 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure who you are referring to, as most everyone on the Featured Article review, at one time or another has spearheaded the saving of a featured article, and cheers when articles are saved. Judgesurreal777 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The saving of a featured article? How 'bout dozens :-) In fact, the only person on this review I don't recall having ever seen "roll{ing} up sleeves" to preserve a featured articles's status would be the author of that comment. Personally, I would think it's time for an admin to do something about disruptive posts at FAR that offer no constructive help or article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have started work on this; should be finished by end of weekend, will update then. Ceoil 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceoil, when you're ready, can you ping those who have already declared "Remove", so we can revisit? I'll put it on the watchlist. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, as per above. Oh heck, we must be power-drunk. Peter Isolato, please see the "Fix 'em" discussion on the talk page. Tony 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per above. Hopefully, Ceoil's nice string of FA saves will continue with this article. — Deckiller 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- On hold to be clear. All hail Ceoil. Marskell 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that this this is held for a week. Have acces to sources, but am over committed. Ceoil 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hailing Ceoil, as commanded :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that this this is held for a week. Have acces to sources, but am over committed. Ceoil 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have cited most of Emsworth's origional article; however there is a lot of material added since on specifics of particluar commonwealth realms that are proving difficult confirm. Some of the additions are low value and are pushing a bias, and its likely I will rv much of these latter sections. Either way, I'll finish by the end of the weekend. Ceoil 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished citing where I though it was needed; though fact tags are welcome. Ceoil 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—there are now enough inline citations to satisfy both ends. Let's not go crazy here. — Deckiller 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ceoil seems to have done excellent work. Unless some one finds additional problems, I think we can call this one saved. Jay32183 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ahh, yet another FA save.... thanks Ceoil! Judgesurreal777 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Ceoil, how do you do it? — Deckiller 00:25, 23 April 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.