Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] History of the Netherlands

Article is still a featured article.

No lead section or sources. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Remove. No headline image either - not up to standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, well done, Solitude: Keep. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep now, good work. Remove. No image, no lead section, no references. - Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Just noted this article listed here, I will work on it next week to get it up to featured standard. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Please re-evaluate the article. I have added an introductory section, referenced and a related image. I hope this adequately addresses aforementioned issues. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:08, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good work. Just fix up all the one sentence paragraphs and I'll certainly support keeping it now. One thought though, did you check any of the added sources to make sure they concur with the info in the article? I worry about that when the sources are added after the fact. - Taxman 13:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for changing your vote, and good point on the one-sentence paragraphs. I've now merged paragraphs where appropriate to improve readability. The references agree on the content but are often more detailed than our article, this merely shows the article could be expanded, the Dutch have a rich history. I would like to add that the main source of this article is the Dutch article on the history of the Netherlands, but I am not sure if internal sources need to listed in the references section. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 14:41, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it could hurt. But maybe others disagree. - Taxman 15:35, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree so I've added the Dutch article as the top reference, I'm in doubt whether the other references should be listed as external links instead though. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 16:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • I suppose, in an ideal world, you would refer to the references for the Dutch version - are any listed? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Nope but it has an external link, to a fairly extensive site which I think was used as main reference for the original article. I think the original author likely had extensive knowledge of the topic himself. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 16:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Well I think the article has improved a lot, I have now added the Night Watch as top image as it's very well known and symbolic for the Dutch golden age. I have moved the previous image of Michiel de Ruyter down, it is appropriate in a subsection. New are images, and proper captions, of Anne Frank, Napoleon and Indeonesia, all important and illustrative elements of Dutch history. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 16:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)