Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Monarchs of the United Kingdom/archive1

Monarchs of the United Kingdom

Main page	Articles
Monarchs of the United Kingdom (category)	George III of the United Kingdom - George IV of the United Kingdom - William IV of the United Kingdom - Victoria of the United Kingdom - Edward VII of the United Kingdom - George V of the United Kingdom - Edward VIII of the United Kingdom - George VI of the United Kingdom - Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

While it's probably a faux pas to nominate more than one topic at a time, I promise I'll stop here, just trying to get a few FTs on the page. George III, IV, and William IV are all FAs, and Victoria is a former FA. --PresN 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems consistent enough; only a few issues on the whole. — Deckill e r 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Full, unified topic, all FA or qualified for GA. --Arctic Gnome 06:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most of those articles are unreferenced and will be coming up at WP:FAR. Sandy (Talk) 11:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of them may loose featured status, but I think most will keep it. The main problem is references, which does need to be fixed. However, I still think all the articles are complete, and make this nominee a good example of gap-free coverage of a topic, which to me is what we are mostly looking for. --Arctic Gnome 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on what do you say that most will retain their featured status? Emsworth hasn't helped reference one of his articles in FARC. No one is tending to those articles, they are being FARC'd at the rate we can process them, and we no longer even know if they're accurate because no one is watching them. Few people are interested in referencing someone else's old FA, even if they can locate the sources. Sandy (Talk) 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of references. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only George IV and Edward VII have big problems with references. I've put notes on those article's talk pages about it. I suggest that we now leave this nomination open for another week to see if anyone finds some new references. --Arctic Gnome 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A preliminary (perhaps incomplete) list of under/uncited bio/royalty FAs can be found here, and those uncited by Lord Emsworth are here. Those that have already lost FA status can be found here. The single bio/royalty article that was cited by other editors since we began notifying Projects many months ago is Mary II of England. Editors have found it very hard to reconstruct the info necessary to cite this older work. The other articles lacking citations have not yet come up at at WP:FAR because there are too many to process at once, and we try not to overburden any given project, hoping that the Projects or individual editors will "save" these older FAs - so far, they've shown no interest.

On your list above, the following remain uncited and would not pass FAC today: George III of the United Kingdom, George IV of the United Kingdom, and William IV of the United Kingdom.
Victoria of the United Kingdom already had FA status removed.
Edward VII of the United Kingdom is uncited, neither GA nor FA.
The only articles partially cited on your list are George V of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom; they are not yet listed GA, and would not likely attain FA in their current state.

As far as I can tell, the list above does not include a single solid FA - rather a few that will soon come up at WP:FAR as they no longer meet criteria - and a number of others which aren't even GA and are poorly cited. Even if the articles you notified on talk page were to be thoroughly cited, you would still be left with a topic without a single, strong Featured Article meeting current rquirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fail --Arctic Gnome 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]