Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George I of Greece
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.
The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.
Self-nomination A "good article" meeting fac. DrKiernan 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Improper referencing. Not enough inline citations to match claims. Lead section far too short for my taste. Prose not brilliant. Here is an example: "George was not the first choice of the Greek people (citation??). Upon the overthrow of Otto, the Greek people had rejected his brother Leopold, the heir presumptive, while adhering to the concept of a monarchy. JHMM13
08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Three references are given for the above - Van der Kiste, Clogg and Forster - all at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose and Conditional Support Support. I agree with JHMM13 that the article needs a larger lead and more citations as some sections do not have any. I also think that the article needs a seperate references section. If my concerns are adressed I would be more than happy to support the article. Kyriakos 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have expanded the lead and separated the note from the references. The unreferenced comments are ones which occur in more than one source. I shall select representative references and insert them gradually. DrKiernan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I thing this artcle can't be Featured article.--Absar 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't particularly helpful or constructive. Please be more specific in your criticism. DrKiernan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest disregarding this vote as biased, possibly nationalist and absolutely unbacked. Todor→Bozhinov 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but after some thought I've decided not to continue with this proposal. I just don't understand how an article like George IV of the United Kingdom can be the Main Page Featured Article in April when it has no citations, and includes comments like "...every time he had intimate relations with a woman he would cut a lock of her hair and place it in an envelope with her name on it. At the time of his death there were allegedly 7,000 such envelopes." Whilst at the same time you oppose FA status for my article because of "Improper referencing" even though it contains no contested comments and is fully referenced.
(1) As I am not able to understand your criticisms, I consequently cannot address them.
(2) I think my limited time would be better spent improving what I consider a bad article like George IV, rather than improving an already good article like George I into a fantastic one.
Please close the discussion and accept my apologies for wasting your time. I would prefer not to enter into correspondence on this matter. DrKiernan 12:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The featured article criteria have changed, George IV was promoted back in 2004. If you think it doesn't meet the criteria, then nominate it for a WP:FAR, but that there are bad featured articles still doesn't mean your article is good enough to be an FA. Some problems with it: no main references, only footnotes; list within the body; no use of cite templates; tiny sections ("Titles, styles and arms" and "Territorial expansion (1871-1881)"). Todor→Bozhinov 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer For the same reason that other such articles have made it there recently: they weren't FARC'd in time to prevent that.--Rmky87 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neither a main reference section nor use of cite tempaltes are required or particularly recommended, so I wouldn't call these issues "problems". Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do I really have to cite WP:FA? OK then: "... this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations... the meta:cite format is recommended." No, cite templates are not required, but they're strongly recommended because they provide uniformity and are easy to use and identify. An FA has to represent "our very best work", and in that sense it should be as good as possible. If it can be improved, then this should be done. Todor→Bozhinov 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The full citations can be mixed in with the notes, as they were in this case before the article was changed; nor does the section need to literally be called "references," although the criteria may be misleading in this regard. See e.g. recent promotions The Four Stages of Cruelty, Hurricane Erika (1997), and many others. Citation templates are specifically "neither encouraged nor discouraged" (WP:CITE) -- while some people like them, others find them strongly distasteful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's a lot more convenient to have the main references and the footnotes in separate sections — it looks better arranged and neater. It also allows you to use simplified syntax in the footnotes instead of giving all the long bibliographic info every time when you just want to list the specific page(s). But it's a matter of personal taste to an extent, that's for sure :) The same goes for cite templates, I guess. Todor→Bozhinov 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- On the usefulness of a references section, at least, I agree with you, and it's obviously okay to suggest methods that you find convenient. But in consideration of nominators I think it is useful to maintain a line between what is actually required and what is a matter of taste. cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's a lot more convenient to have the main references and the footnotes in separate sections — it looks better arranged and neater. It also allows you to use simplified syntax in the footnotes instead of giving all the long bibliographic info every time when you just want to list the specific page(s). But it's a matter of personal taste to an extent, that's for sure :) The same goes for cite templates, I guess. Todor→Bozhinov 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The full citations can be mixed in with the notes, as they were in this case before the article was changed; nor does the section need to literally be called "references," although the criteria may be misleading in this regard. See e.g. recent promotions The Four Stages of Cruelty, Hurricane Erika (1997), and many others. Citation templates are specifically "neither encouraged nor discouraged" (WP:CITE) -- while some people like them, others find them strongly distasteful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do I really have to cite WP:FA? OK then: "... this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations... the meta:cite format is recommended." No, cite templates are not required, but they're strongly recommended because they provide uniformity and are easy to use and identify. An FA has to represent "our very best work", and in that sense it should be as good as possible. If it can be improved, then this should be done. Todor→Bozhinov 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have provided main references; split the footnotes; formatted the list according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted lists; used cite templates; and expanded sections George I of Greece#Titles, styles and arms and George I of Greece#Territorial expansion (1871-1881). DrKiernan 09:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support This article seems to meet the criteria for featured article status.Argos'Dad 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It is usually a good idea for the article to have sections other than biographical, particulary one describing concepts like his achievements, influence and notability.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.