Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/George III of the United Kingdom/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:45, 18 January 2010 [1].

George III of the United Kingdom edit

Toolbox
Notified: Ian Rose, DrKiernan, WikiProject British Royalty,WikiProject England

I had thought that all of the Emsworth articles had been reviewed until noticing this hasn't been done. It was originally listed as having no citations but has seen substantial organic improvement. I bring it here just for a look over. I will try to go through the prose myself. Marskell (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check OK but alt text required. I'll have a go at writing some. In my opinion, this article meets the criteria for comprehensiveness and accuracy. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is an article which fortunately has stayed on people's watchlists since attaining FA status, so it should be in good shape and just need a few updates from a MOS perspective, e.g. for alt text, as DK points out. I'll go though it from top to bottom as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks pretty good as far as MOS goes, though the gold guinea image under William Pitt cuts into the left-hand side of the following section on my screen. Perhaps this image would be better placed in the legacy section. Apart from that, I think we need a bit of work to tighten up the referencing, mainly ensuring each para has at least one citation and/or that we finish every para with a citation:
  • Under Marriage, the last bit of the first para should be cited (it may be just a matter of moving the previous citation to the end, or repeating the first citation of the next para).
  • Ditto first para of American Revolutionary War.
  • Ditto second para of William Pitt.
  • Ditto second para of French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and sentence The possibility of invasion was extinguished after Admiral Lord Nelson's famous naval victory at the Battle of Trafalgar.
  • Ditto second, third and fourth paras of Later Life.
  • Ditto first para of Legacy.
  • Ditto second and third paras under Arms.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage, Nelson, Arms, and one paragraph of Later life done. Pitt merged with follow-on sentence. The remaining paragraphs in the Later life and Legacy sections are just standard facts.
That only leaves the concerns over the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars sections. These are very general statements that surely represent a fair summary? DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly minor formatting question: is it usual to include the definite article in the dabs of titles? I had started removing them (the Duke of Saxe-Gotha --> the Duke of Saxe-Gotha) but realized it's done throughout. I don't want to introduce an inconsistency.

I think any prose work needed will be very slight. Marskell (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"His humane and understanding treatment of two insane assailants, Margaret Nicolson in 1786 and John Frith in 1790, contributed to his popularity." Without a blue link, this sentence leaves me curious for more. Would a short section on assassination attempts be warranted? There seem to have been enough of them.
I really can't find much to complain about in the prose. Napolean's plans to invade are perhaps given too much play relative to the other military history. Conversely, things seem to end rather abruptly at 1809. Did George not have any public role or comment during the later Napoleonic Wars or the War of 1812? The War of 1812 doesn't even get mentioned. One or two more sentences on the etiology of porphyria (as well as any criticism of the theory) might also be in order.
Other than that, I think the coverage is excellent. Marskell (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Margaret Nicholson and John Frith (assailant) added; coverage of invasion scare reduced. With regard to his years of darkness, his last public appearance was in October 1810, and most of his powers were transferred in February 1811, with the remainder following a year later. His biographers skate over the last decade of his life as there's really nothing much to say about him personally other than he was ill. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once DrKiernan and Ian Rose are satisfied here, so am I; I probably won't revisit this FAR unless someone pings me for input. Minor issues: the article mixes citation styles, citation and cite templates (see WP:CITE, and some instances of p. have spaces after them, others don't, in the citations-- please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting done. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. I'm unsure about some of the WP:ITALICS in the "Arms" section, and I don't know why that stupid Citation template italicizes websites, but this looks to be good enough to close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. After a thorough read through, everything looks great to me, definitely FA quality. A very nice article, which does not need to be taken through the FARC process. Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Thank you for the comments. I'm happy with the article too. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=1078810819"