Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buckingham Palace/archive1

Add links
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 17:53, 31 May 2007.

Buckingham Palace

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:ALoan, England, Architecture, British Royalty, WikiProject Biography/Royalty, WikiProject London, British Government and UK noticeboard. LuciferMorgan 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it is very comprehensive and there is a lot of information. However, i feel it does not cite enough references, it is not clear which information came from which book and the lead is rather long. Therefore is propose looking at 1)c) and 2)a). Simply south 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There seem to be quite enough references to me. It is just a matter of not being, as Simply south says, "clear which information came from which book". In other words, the inline citation issue. The lead is marginally long. JPD (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeniably it is very scarcely referenced; and there are a lot of red links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scarcely" referenced? What, eight apposite paper sources are now no longer enough? And I count a mere nine redlinks. What is the matter with redlinks anyway? They are the way that new content is added. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with the page at all, nothing contraversial. Giano 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which parts of the lead you would leave out, if you think it should be shorter? Yes, it has five paragraphs, which is perhaps more than WP:LEAD recommends; on the other hand, it is a long article, and the lead is a good summary of it. I doubt we are going to get anywhere rehashing old arguments about the "density" of inline citations. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is fine. The lead is longer than a paragraph, but this is only if you define "lead" as "bit above the TOC." There is a lead paragraph, but there is an introduction to the subject, and it requires that much space. The references question is not a question at all: the thing is fine. Red links are a sign that you and you and you need to either stop over-linking or need to start writing; they have nothing to do with this article's FA status. Utgard Loki 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted to trim down the lead - there were a number of places where it diverted into marginal relevance and the partial explanation of the pre-Palace history did not entirely cohere. The amount of lead I've removed is quite bold, but please do think about whether it needs all that stuff reinserted. Regarding the inline cites: I felt the assertion that Buckingham Palace was deliberately targeted by the Germans in WWII was sufficiently challengable to require an inline cite — and I'm a military history geek, I'm sure an art history geek would find a number of other challengeable assertions (though I obviously can't tell you what they are ;). Regards, The Land 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you like - I wrote it once and now I'm through with FAs. It has been much edited, and I refuse ever again to have anything to do with a page in which LuciferMorgan is in anyway involved (i.e. here) so its farewell from me on this subject. Giano 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has only been involved in notifying people that this page exists... The Land 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Mr. ALoan is involved, there's no reason we can't get through this quickly. Some notes:
  • Embedded links are deprecated on FAs; should conform to the footnote style of the rest.
  • I notice one one sentence paragraph. Check for these.
  • The lead was too long and the trim is good. Some could be added back, such as a sentence on the pre-1800s property, but compressed.
  • Check for consistency in spaces and full stop location around ref numbers.
  • No, red links are not a criteria concern.
  • No, density of citations is not a criteria concern. I think we can amicably look through this for any statements "likely to be challenged."
And yes, LM was only notifying people that the review exists. There's no harm in that. Marskell 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the little stuff has already been taken care of. I flagged one quote and some BLP info (hidden). Marskell 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another bullshit FARC a la Restoration literature. I even see the same people voting keep, and oddly enough these people are never at FARC.. Go figure. LuciferMorgan 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself please - in full Giano 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or don't. For God's sake Lucifer, there was no need for a flame post. At this point, the article is not in keep territory. But ALoan knows what he's doing, so we can wait. And shut up. Marskell 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you shut up for a change Marskell and do us all a favour? Every FARC once in a while you seem to poke your nose in for no good reason. Just because you're an admin don't think I'll put up with you telling me to shut up - you throw something at me and I'll throw it straight back Marskell. LuciferMorgan 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited and over-tired everybody, because next week I've booked the Battle of Pearl Harbor performed by the Batley Townswomen's Guild in the FARC for Bulbasaur. Yomanganitalk 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's ok then. If you see read Attack on Pearl Harbor you will see that it was a minor incident which caused few casualties and had little strategic consequence, except causing the USA to win World War II. grumble grumble grumble ;) The Land 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why all of this discussion got indented under my Comment, since it's not a response to me, and it's not a conversation involving me? Unindenting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment the page is just about fine. However, I have been saying for the last 18 months that it is too big and high profile a page to be reasonably maintained. Too many want to add their Auntie Mabel's night of passion with a GI in the rose garden on VE night, or one of their terrible holiday photos or some other such nonsense. In short unless it is almost constantly watched it is unstable. When I turned it from a stub into an FA it was a very different page to that today, I no longer have the will or the time to constantly monitor it, so it can only go one way. I think there is a case for these very big high profile pages to be permanently protected or at least only open to selected editors, but that "aint" going to happen. So it may as well be abandoned. I don't see the point of anyone spending huge amounts of time working on it just to satisfy demands here. Giano 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relative to many FAs, I wouldn't call this unstable and we certainly shouldn't demote on 1e. It's at 30k readable prose, which is fine, though the lead might be trimmed some more. WRT to work needed, see this edit from DrKiernan. He has rapidly become our top royalty editor and the embedded concerns and fact requests seem knowledgeable and fair. If that is taken care of, along with the redlinked newspaper and any BLP info in "Security" (that section could also be trimmed) I think we'd be very close. Marskell 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an expert on Royalty he will doubtless know that many of those facts he has tagged come from the Buckingham Palace Guide book listed in the refs - others have obviously been added by numerous other editors, and as for the sentence reading oddly from the "Sunday Graphic" that will have to be taken up with the editor of that illustrious organ - if he is still alive. In the time it took him to make those edits he could have fixed it up - Oh yes, the Normanby to Normandy is changed regularly - it should be Normanby. I cited all the references I used and the time of the FAC and that is all I am prepared to do. At the moment there is nothing wrong with the page, although a few people have added sections I would prefer to trim, and ending withthis section is very odd [1] but it seems a shame to upset people for such trivial reasons. The page contains all, and often more than, people need or want to know about the palace - and if they want to check a fact the references are there for them to do so. It you choose to demote this page that is entirely up to you, and no problem for me as I won't be the one maintaining it. Giano 16:11, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Buckingham_Palace/archive1&oldid=1078810135"