Wikipedia:Featured article review/Charles I of England/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 07:48, 3 June 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland, Scotland, and Saints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Emsworth classic. For it's size, more inline citations seem to be in order, and also a tag for the opening image. Judgesurreal777 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In addition to needing refs it also has WP:MSH, WP:UNITS, and WP:PDATA issues at a quick glance. There's also a couple of instances of American spelling mixed in. Quadzilla99 12:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead image's tag was missing due to vandalism and has been restored by Strangerer. Pagrashtak 13:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of bad spelling here and there, but the historical facts seem astute enough. I'll probably make some more improvements soon. Schizmatic 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), image (3), MoS issues (2). Marskell 07:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Clearly, there are insufficient inline citations. There is also a highly dubious claim of an illegitimate child, which is referenced but requires at the very least a suitable rebutting reference. DrKiernan 23:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Article needs rewriting as well as referencing. On the subject of the passage mentioned above, its presence is typical of the way featured articles degenerate—obscure chunks of irrelevant research tacked on with no care for the article's overall form (one of the first things we needed to get rid of in the James I of England article was the notion, reffed to two feeble sources, that he was a changeling). One day I'd like to have a go at making this article good again, but I'd need to do a lot of reading first. qp10qp 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c and above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 13:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.