Wikipedia:Featured article review/Royal Assent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Royal Assent
[edit] Review commentary
-
- 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)
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)
- Could you specify what needs citations and why?
- Peter Isotalo 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless they are self evident, like the sun is hot, then yes they do :) Judgesurreal777 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps those "whole paragraphs without citation" don't actually need citations? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] FARC commentary
- 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)
- Remove per 1c and also the article concerns highlighted by Marskell. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Remove short 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)
- Remove largely uncited, non-formatted footnotes, stubby sections. Jay32183 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
