Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William IV of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] William IV of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 22:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral, with reservations, for now, article reads well, has a lot of facts, but it seems very POV in syntax, feeling like it is offering an opinon on various historical issues, and persents the couse of events as active observer instead of an passive observer. That said, the feel of an active observer may be a good thing, it makes the article unique, but that may not be fit for an encyclopedia enviroment. Ctrl_build 02:35 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 13:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. However, there are some rather odd capitalisations (e.g. "People", "Ministry") and the odd typo ("ministery"). It may also be worth mentioning that the threat that forced the House of Lords to pass the Reform Act 1832 (viz, ennobling a sufficient number of new sympathetic peers) was also required to pass the Parliament Act 1911. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed, but "the People" (capitalised and with the definite article) refers to the political unit or electorate. -- Emsworth 20:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Great - still support - but I think it is a bit misleading to refer to the British electorate in the early 19th century (before the Reform Acts; before universal suffrage) as "the People". There were an awful lot of people who were not members of "the People". -- ALoan (Talk) 20:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You appear to be suggesting "the Electorate" - does this fit? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Not really - in context, "the People" seems to refer to the "common people" - that is, the average person in the street. I would be quite surprised if that average person was enfranchised. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Point taken, and addressed. -- Emsworth 23:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 17:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• It would be great if we found a better image, if possible. ✏ Sverdrup 10:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sadly, my attempts to find a better image failed due to copyright issues. -- Emsworth 10:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Presumably a copy of a contemporary painting ought to be ok? images.coogle.com leads to [1] or [2] or [3]. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Super Duper Strong Immeasurable Honourable Support! ugen64 00:57, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)