Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Edward VI of England

Edward VI of England

Article is still a featured article

It seems to me that this article, while good, isn't quite up to what we currently expect of featured articles.

• The article is short. There are plenty of extant sources on this period and I would expect a more detailed article.
• Even while lacking in information the writing seems confusing and repetitive. For example, Edward's death causes are referred to several times in different ways but never explored in any depth.
• There are several surviving artworks depicting Edward, there's no need to limit the article to one and use it twice.
• A map or two might be helpful to give the reader some idea of the campaigns in Scotland and Cornwall during Edward's reign.
• The article has no in-line citations or footnotes of any kind.
• More solid references would be helpful. The three currently listed references are:
  1. Britannica 1911
  2. A very brief biography on a history website
  3. A tripod page which is no longer online

I posted the above three days ago on the talk page and there has been no response. Additionally there's been a request for more information on the rebellions on the talk page since last year. Haukur 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Many instances of awkward, convoluted prose, such as: "by the age of thirteen, he found himself translating books into the latter language"; and "Alternatively, given that Jane Seymour died days after Edward VI's birth, it is natural that Henry VIII would seek remarriage, which act does not, therefore, necessarily substantiate claims that Edward VI was a sickly child". And where are the inline citations? Tony 01:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delay. I'm trying to fix the valid items mentioned above. Might take a few days. What I don't think is valid is the size issue (the guy was king only for a handful of years) and the inline cites issue (this article went through FAC before that was a requirement and inline cites are specifically not required retroactively). -- mav 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  Impressive work so far! Haukur 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  Support Delay; nice work, not sure I'll get a chance but will try to help a bit. I think broadening the sources would be a good idea, and also broadening the scope a bit to give his reign more context. Sam 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  OK, I think I've addressed all the valid concerns and suggestions except for the idea to add maps since I couldn't find any; better citations added (including some inline ones), the noted odd prose changed or deleted, the repetitive mentions of his death have been consolidated, other images added, and two of the three bad references were replaced by better ones. I even expanded the lead section so it can act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. The only things I see that can be improved would be a modest expansion of the Warwick section and maybe a copyedit by somebody with good British English skills (I tried not to copyedit too much since I did not want to harm the British English specific spelling and grammar). So I now vote to keep. --mav 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm a bit on the fence, still, since much is still unsourced (especially "death and aftermath"), and references to significant contemporary events (e.g., declaration of war by France) are pretty sparse and not linked (I looked - it may just be that that particular iteration of the Anglo-French wars lacks a page). Some of this is a problem with linked pages (the English Reformation page is not very good) rather than this page, but it shows a general lack of richness to the information. Still, this page has improved significantly, and meets F/A criteria as well as many historical articles. So, let's give it a weak keep for now. Sam 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  I agree. It's still not quite up to current standards at FAC but it's no worse than several other historical articles and not so embarrassingly bad that we need to defeature it. Haukur 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, Mav, thanks for all the work fixing this up. I've tried to provide a little bit of help, but it's really not my primary period or interest area, so I'm hesitant to add much without some background reading. Sam 15:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reinforced remove—Thanks for your note on my talk page. I've looked at the lead again, which does not yet pass Criterion 2a: is the rest of the article any better? Here are examples from the lead.
  • "Having never reached majority, Edward's rule was mediated through a council of regency his father established; first led by his uncle, the merciful yet ineffective Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547-49) and then by the zealous and very ambitious John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland." "That" would be nicer inserted before "his father". The second part of the sentence, after the semicolon, must be a stand-alone sentence; it doesn't make sense. Why not use an en dash (1547–49 looks much better, and many authorities insist on it). Remove "very".
• "Increasingly harsh Protestant reforms along with the loss of control of Scotland and an economic downturn all combined to create ". "All combined" is redundant—you've said it already in "along with"; just make it "downturn created ...". Some commas would make it an easier read (here, after "reforms" and "downturn". There's a comma missing from the next sentence, and then we have the ludicrous "thrown" (= "throne"?).

Sorry, this is not FA material. Can you find a different person to go through it properly? Tony 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at the lead; right now, I see several "keeps", albeit not particularly strong ones, and just Tony suggesting removal. At some point we've got to get the lead right and get past it. I think the rest is indeed now FA quality, though it could be stronger. Sam 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it "could be stronger", it doesn't yet meet FA standards. Simple as that. Tony 03:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard is not perfection. I think the purpose of this exercise is to clarify ways to improve an article. The ways I identified as most needing improvement, such as referencing major historical events and trends during the reign, have been addressed. I'm not a significant contributor to the article, but I think the contributors do deserve to hear somewhat more detailed critiques. Sam 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)