Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hereditary peer/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hereditary peer

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at Emsworth. LuciferMorgan 12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another ancient royalty-related article lacking real references (has a section of external links), and also an obsolete image tag and some red links. Judgesurreal777 01:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can notice the nominator is really going to town on Lord Emsworth's FAs, much in the same way I have with the Beatles Wikiproject. All I can say is if/when he eventually returns, I hope he has thick skin and continues to be a Wikipedian. As he isn't around, it won't cause him to improve the article as he doesn't even read Wikipedia at the moment! Onto the review... needs inline citations (1.c). LuciferMorgan 09:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional messages left at Peerage, UK notice board, and Middle Ages. Sandy (Talk) 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with LuciferMorgan's concern about Lord Emsworth's FA's. He wrote them before footnotes were generally available (the references/ system) or widely used. No fault of his own, had he written it today, I'm sure he would have done a good job with footnotes. The problem now, no one else is going to be able to readily footnote the article except Lord Emsworth. Does this mean the article is poor and needs to be de-featured? I don't think so. I think this article (and others) should be grandfathered in, at least for now. BTW Judgesurreal777, your comment "ancient royalty" reveals a lack of experience with the subject matter, I think we need to look at more than just footnotes. There is a References section, and the way things were done prior was that the works used in writing the article are listed in the References section, so we know which books he used to write it. I'm not sure why you say it's lacking "real" references" - this is commonly done in "real" published academic works. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Judgesurreal777's tone is somewhat unhelpful. Re references, the article is/was little more than the distillation of the contents of the references given. You could add links that merely repeated the sources given but it would obviously take time and someone with the sources to add page numbers. I see no reason however why the reds can't be sorted very quickly and the img tags looked at. Alci12 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question and comments Q:are redlinks a reason for review? I would have thought it was reason to fill the redlinks rather than a reason for potentially delisting the FA. The inline citations should be easy to provide as all the references have links to the online versions (apart from the 1911 EB which is online in several places anyway). And on a personal note, I wouldn't mind a slightly slower nomination rate of Emsworth's articles. Yomangani^talk 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind a slightly slower nomination rate of Emsworth's articles. I second that: Yomangani has put forward a good effort at salvaging many of these articles: it would help if they came at a slower pace, and we not overburden any one FA author with multiple noms up at a time. Sandy (Talk) 04:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: A serious concern was raised by User:Stbalbach about the lack of rules and documentation regarding older Featured Articles and citations. This discussion was deemed irrelevant by a number of "FAR regulars" and moved to the discussion page. Please see there for more information, which I believe is relevant to this articles FAR, and unfairly removed from this discussion. -- Stbalbach 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, please don't remove my (or anybody's) signature, Stb. I didn't say it was irrelevant--I said it was irrelevant to the content of this article. The talk page is sitting there and it's just the sort of thing talk pages are for. No one who wants to comment is going to miss it. Marskell 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree it's irrelevant to the this articles FAR. I've also restored your signature (below) - I removed it as a practical matter to avoid confusing the reader with TWO notes. -- Stbalbach 20:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Discussion on citations moved to talk page. Marskell 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Criterion 1a. Needs a run-through by a copy-editor to qualify. Take the opening sentence.
  • "The Peerage in the United Kingdom includes over seven hundred hereditary peers, who hold titles that may be inherited." Includes? So there are other categories you're not telling us about? Or should it be "comprises"? "More than" would be nicer than "over", although not compulsory; similarly, consider using numerals for numbers of more than nine. Why not "inherented titles" instead of the cumbersome "titles that may be inherited". If only some are heritable, this should not be assumed here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

That wording may have been a deliberate choice. For instance in France you could hold a heritable title without being a peer so the reading peer/title and though they are the same thing is not to be assumed in all peerages although it is true in this one. Alci12 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have just noticed this list of Lord Emsworth's FAs which will presumably be up for FAR shortly. Even at the excessive pace that Judgesurreal777 has been nominating recently (one every 3 or 4 days), it will take a few months to get through them. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He has a list? Real mad is that. If it improves the status of FA and the quality of the articles, I'm for it. Personally, I can't understand some others who rule quantity over quality. FA has higher standards now, so let's maintain them. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a relief to know that someone is watching these neglected FAs, as the Projects apparently aren't. The number of deteriorated FAs written by Emsworth highlights the need to thoroughly reference FACs; it's much harder to pick up the pieces later, when editors move on. Sandy (Talk) 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommentIt's true, several of Emsworths articles have degraded significantly, and I hope that most of them will be saved. However, I really feel, so long as I do not nominate them so quickly that it balloons the FAR page, we shouldn't have a problem. Also, I have helped save Link (Legend of Zelda), Starcraft, tried to save Wario (which is GA) and am trying to give Super Mario 64 a good fixup to save its status, so I definitely don't want to just take away FA stars, for the record. Judgesurreal777 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I'd also like to point out that it is the FAR directors jobs to decide when an article has had enough time. If Emsworths articles have a real chance of getting saved, perhaps they will grant them a little additional time. Judgesurreal777 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note As long as work is being done on an article its FAR is left open. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Status? Yomangani has done some work on the article, but there are still broad patches of uncited text. Is more time needed? Sandy (Talk) 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Tony and Yomangani. Sandy (Talk) 21:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've had trouble tracking down information on the details of writs of summons and letters patent which comprises a good portion of the article, so I've stopped working on it. If anybody can cite those details, I can finish it off, but otherwise I'd say remove. Yomangani^talk 15:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Not enough work has been done to address the problems in the writing. I shouldn't be able to find sentences like "The ranks of the Peerage are, in descending order of rank" or "Thus, if the parents marry after the birth an illegitimate child may succeed to a Scottish peerage, but not an English, Irish or British one." (What does "one" mean here? Tony 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One = peerage presumably the author didn't want to repeat the word. Seemed obvious enough to me. Alci12 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)