Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mary I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mary I of England

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK Notice board, Ireland, and Scotland. Sandy (Talk) 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has no in line citations, and one of the images has an obsolete tag. Should be pretty easy to fix up, should anyone be interested... :) Judgesurreal777 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It was written before inline citations were available (a problematic template system). The author of the article is no longer at Wikipedia and no one else is going to be able to footnote it using his original sources. He listed the works he used in the References section, which is good enough for the majority of academics in the real world. Wikipedia's ultra-detail level of footnoting is at the extreme end of the scale in real world - it's perfectly acceptable to list works at the end of an article in just about every professional encyclopedia I've seen. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article was already a FARC and passed. Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Mary I of England. Why is it being brought up again just 5 months later? -- Stbalbach 15:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It passed because someone claimed the nominator hadn't given it enough chance after voicing his concerns on the talk page. I'd say five months is enough time for a chance, and it hasn't had any improvement in there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone mentioned here that "inline cite requirement is not applied to FAs that passed before that requirement took hold." -- Stbalbach 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is an old quote. Citations are required on FAs. Sandy (Talk) 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As well as the references issue, it clearly fails 1a. Here are randon examples from the middle.

• Huge, winding snake: "Edward VI did not desire that the Crown go to either the Lady Mary or the Lady Elizabeth; consequently, he excluded them from the line of succession in his will, which was unlawful, because it contradicted an Act of Parliament passed in 1544 restoring the Lady Mary and the Lady Elizabeth to the line of succession, and because it was made by a minor. "
• "was punished by having his ears cut off"—Why, oh why, do we need a link for "ear"? Do we or do we not speak English? Later, heart ...
• Lots of one-sentence paragraphs ...
• Stubby, blunt statements, such as "Mary did not have many successes."
• References, please!
• "see its article for more information"—What is "its" here? Clumsy internal cross-reference, anyway.

Should go into FARC. Tony 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think I've cleaned up the overwikilink issue -- the only wikilink that isn't clearly relevant on first glance now is arms, which pipes to heraldry. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are in-line citations, images, and prose. Joelito (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Article is lacking inline citations. Sandy (Talk) 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove—Pity; all this editing, but hardly any inline citations. In some places it's worse (e.g., the introduction of "Some authors say"—who?). Tony 09:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Citations are the main thing.UberCryxic 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)