Wikipedia:Featured article review/Order of the Garter/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Order of the Garter

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, UK notice board, Middle Ages, and Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has no inline citations (1c) and the image in the lead has an inappropriate copyright tag (3). Jay32183 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'd like to know how Lord Emsworth feels when he returns to Wikipedia and sees so many of his FAs defeatured or at FAR/C. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope he doesn't shoot the messenger <eeek> Sandy (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as far as the image, I don't know. But I'm sure an article doesn't have to have inline citations(altough it would be nice). Suffencient references are given in the appropiate section. Joe I 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a review, not a removal candidate, so we aren't voting yet. Inline citations are required to verify specific facts. Right now a non-expert can't verify anything. You are right that if the image were the only problem that the article wouldn't be listed here, but it still needs to be fixed. Jay32183 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please see above.  :) Joe I 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.) and I feel it may possibly be too listy which makes the article disjointed (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a great article! The lack of inline is because he didn't write it when inline was required, or even available (it was a problematic template system). He lists the references used in writing it, and this is how legitimate academic scholarly works are done. The level of inline citation that seems to be the "norm" now at Wikipedia is at the far end of the extreme in scholarly works - and inline citations don't mean an article is of good quality. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments Uncited, extremely listy, some version of something that looks like it wants to be See also or Notables but is just a long list, does not conform to WP:LAYOUT. Sandy (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the lists of the members could be split off into its own article unless anybody objects, but I don't think the bullet points in the body are a particular problem. Should be easy to cite - I'll come back to it in FARC if nobody does anything on it. Yomanganitalk 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A list of all the members ever already exists at List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter. Given that it's such an exclusive Order (26 members + royal extras) I don't think it's inappropriate to list all the current members in the article; it's certainly the sort of thing someone looking up the subject would probably want to know. Maybe a two-column format would make it look better. A lot of the other bulleted sections in the text (e.g. vestments) could easily have the bullets removed. What layout problems specifically did you have in mind, Sandy? I may be able to help cite this, but I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The *order* of the sections doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT - easy to change as long as no one objects. Sandy (Talk) 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Discussion on citations moved to talk page. Sandy (Talk) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've mostly finished on this. I've split off the current member list just because it was easier to handle that way. There are two paragraphs that I haven't been able to reference which I think must come from the Begent and Chesshyre book - I'll try and get hold of this, but feel free to move it to FARC in the meantime. Yomanganitalk 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm impressed. Good work. Jay32183 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Much work already done. Moving it down to keep it on track. Marskell 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I've added references from Begent and Chesshyre to the remaining paragraphs so just about everything is cited now (although a unsourced statement about a possible link to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was recently added). I removed the assertion that some of the vestments were designed for the coronation of George IV because this wasn't mentioned in B&C, and is indeed inconsistent with the details given in the article about each item (the hat may well have been, though). I've also replaced the picture of the Queen Mother, which was a copyvio (painted in 1938 by an artist who died in 1972, so not "no rights due of age" as stated on the image page). The image of the garter needs to be properly tagged or replaced. I notice the section about the chapel of the Order got split off to its own article some time ago. For consistency with the articles on the other orders I think there should at least be a paragraph with a {{Main}} tag. Dr pda 14:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I removed the header picture, as I don't see how we can claim fair use just because it is a better picture than the ones we already have. I've also removed the Sir Gawain statement, as "a presumed link" sounds like OR to me (and I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere so it isn't generally presumed). I've also cancelled my order for the C&B book! Yomanganitalk 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of work has been done, and I think at this point I can say this is a keeper. The image I originally had a problem with is gone, and there are now lots of inline citations. Good job! Jay32183 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per references added by Yomangani, and other improvements. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's mostly very well written, but the prose needs cleaning up in places (sorry to sound like a broken gramaphone record). Take the opening:
The Most Noble Order of the Garter is an English order of chivalry with a history stretching back to mediæval times; today it is the world's oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence and the pinnacle of the British honours system. Its membership is extremely limited, consisting of the Sovereign and not more than twenty-five full members, or Companions. Male members are known as Knights Companion, whilst female members are known as Ladies Companion (not Dames, as in most other British chivalric orders).
    • Remove "with a history of".
    • The use of semicolons throughout is problematic. Needs an audit to ensure that the closeness of statements is logically expressed by semicolons vs stops. The first one here, I think, should be a stop.
    • "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence"—try "oldest continuous order ...".
    • Remove "extremely" (what does it mean here?)
    • "Whilst" is a personal hate of mine: why not simply "and" as a link?

And further on:

    • Again, the relationship between statements is a problem: "The Order was founded in 1348 by King Edward III as "a society, fellowship and college of knights."[1] Various dates ranging from 1344 to 1351 have also been proposed." It's a contrastive, isn't it? "The Order was (or "appears to have been") founded ..., although other dates have been proposed, from ...".

A 30-minute run-through by fresh eyes should be enough. Tony 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Dr pda and I have both run through it (eyes at least, if not exactly fresh). I've asked a few people to have a go, but it will be a while before they can get to it, so if anybody wants to volunteer... I've left "oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence" as I think that it makes it clear that the order's existence is continuous rather than the order being a honour that can continue by being passed down through the generations - I couldn't see how to rephrase it and maintain that distinction (fresh eyes will deal with that appropriately, I guess). Yomanganitalk 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know the review has passed now, but since you mention this early sentence: I reduced it to simply "It is the world's oldest national order of knighthood, and the pinnacle of the British honours system", but perhaps that oversimplifies it. I figured that "is" adequately says that it currently exists. I may have misunderstood the meaning of "continuous" here. I saw it as the excess verbosity one often sees. ("My grandma is the oldest member of my family in continuous existence.") I'll try something else, and make Tony's suggested changes also. –Outriggr § 08:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Changed my mind. "Continuous" is staying out unless someone wishes to put it back, and most of the other comments above look to have been addressed. –Outriggr § 08:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)