Wikipedia:Featured article review/William III of England/archive1

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 09:57, April 25, 2008.

William III of England

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands informed

Promoted in 2004 and has only 5 inline citations, excessive deadlinks and not very well-written

Please read the instructions at WP:FAR and do the notifications; delist is not declared during the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soz ye i realise that now --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add some cites and clean up the writing where possible. Coemgenus 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus is up to 43 footnotes and still at work. What formatting concerns? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per criterion 1c. A large partof the article still remains uncited. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm citing and rewriting as fast as I can. How long does this process last? Coemgenus 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, say another two weeks or so, but it's generally extended if anyone's still working on the article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite my personal disklike of the man, I've been following his FAR, and I think the article is now FA standard. So a weary keep from me. Nice work, Coemgenus. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I didn't start out liking William, either, but after reading the biographies, my opinion of him as a man has improved, whatever else I think of his right to oust an anointed king from his throne. At any rate, I think the article should be good enough to keep now. I'll be adding some more citation as I read the Van der Zee book. Coemgenus 14:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still am sticking to my vote, mainly due to the largely uncited "Legacy" section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: there are still some uncited parts. I hope to get to them soon, but I would welcome any citations you might add in the meantime. Coemgenus 12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The info in Legacy strikes me as fairly uncontroversial but a couple of refs won't hurt. Add that and we can keep it. Marskell (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.