Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain/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 kept 13:13, 20 February 2007.
Anne, Queen of Great Britain[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Messages left at Biography, Lord Emsworth Jeffpw 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Royalty and UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was featured in Sept of 2004, but has very inline citations which are now requested for 1c. More importantly, the citations which are present are inconsistent: there is a References section, two REF-style internal citations, and some that look like MLA-style in SMALL tags. Otherwise, the article still reads well, so these should be easily addressed and more citations added. JRP 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a ton of referencing using sources found through google books. Also, fixed the image. Please let me know on my talk page if A. there are statements that you think need more referencing or that have improper referencing, B. the rationale on the new image is correct- I'm never sure of my rationales. Mocko13 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WOW ! Can other editors pls have a look - the article has been referenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment: The google book is excellent one to peek what we are looking for, but please don't use their URL as external link. Please
use standard {{cite book}} (see examples in WP:CITET) and particularlylink the books with ISBN rather than an external link. — Indon (reply) — 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Indon, you lost me? Are you saying just to add ISBNs on to the References? (A lot of them are very old books and may not have them?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some statements use words like "probably" etc. as though the statement is speculation and not fact - these statements need citations. LuciferMorgan 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok that's fine. I've added more [citation needed] tags for you to get through if you're up for it :) LuciferMorgan 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? Lots of work done; will we be able to close this without moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still has a few cite tags unfilled. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleared the {{fact}} tags that remained. Most I provided references for, but a couple of statements were incorrect, so I corrected them. One seemed unlikely and I couldn't find a ref for it, so I dropped it, and a couple of tags were either supported by citations later in the paragraph or were self citing (Writers such as Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift flourished during Anne's reign - I assume we can skip listing the output of these three). Yomanganitalk 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, fulfills WP:WIAFA. — Indon (reply) — 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice work. + Ceoil 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added one fact tag for the only uncited paragraph, but aside from that it seems well-referenced, prose is fairly tight. Trebor 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. Looks good; I'll see if I can find any lingering issues. — Deckiller 04:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Keep; everything appears passable. — Deckiller 04:34, 18 February 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.