Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mary II of England/archive1

Mary II of England edit

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/to do, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has one reference to the 1911 Encyclopedia, a website, and no inline citations. Also, it may be uncomprehensive, but that is a more minor point since I am not familiar with the topic. Judgesurreal777 07:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1. c. which asks for inline citations, references and so on isn't met by this article. This needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look this weekend at my references to add appropriate cites and references. As for comprehenive, remember that she only "ruled" for five or so years and even that was as a figurehead. --mav 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Two weeks, still no inline cites, move to FARC. Sandy 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Remove~~. Per bove+just one reference except for Britannica. Very poor research.--Yannismarou 08:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As it seems to have been abandoned, I've started work on this, but gathering references for some of the claims is taking longer than I thought it would, and I'd prefer to do some more digging than cut them from the article. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I don't think it is lacking in any significant detail (there are a few minor points that I will fill out later from the new references). Yomangani ^talk 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a nice job. If you find quite swiftly the material you want, Ok. The article needs some more inline citations (some paragraphs have no inline citations) and definitely some more sources. Britannica and one more source do not constitute the adequate number of references. If you don't have the necessary time, you can work on the article with you own pace and renominate it for FA.--Yannismarou 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work so far: I'm willing to wait. On a separate note, I am discouraged when reviewers vote to Remove for lack of inline citations when the FARC period is just beginning: it might be helpful to not accumulate Remove votes until we're certain no one is going to do the work - perhaps at least a week into the FARC. Sandy 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished citing sources and added what detail was missing (turns out she wasn't that exciting as queens go). I wasn't intending to relist the cited sources in the references section as Yannismarou seems to be suggesting (maybe I've misunderstood?), as this seems a bit redundant, but I can do it if it is some requirement or style pointer I've so far missed. I suppose I should point out that I've noticed the connected article, William III, is an FA and suffers the same problems as this one, so probably needs listing on FAR at some point. Yomangani ^talk 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more just the shark guy, huh ? :-) I've left notes for other reviewers to have a new look (Yannismarou is already aware, so didn't leave a note for him/her). There's a long list of these articles that need cites: you can find it on the WP:FAR talk page. <grin> I'll have a look at this article tomorrow, and cast my vote. Sandy 03:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just about keep. Good summary style and an engaging read. Refs seem solid now--well done.

One thing: can we clarify the difference between the Scottish and Anglo-Irish thrones? The second sentence in the intro has a singular subject despite two thrones being mentioned in the first. We don't need a lengthy explanation in the intro; just a brief clause and then an inline note explaining it. I don't want to give the impression that the thrones were conterminous during her reign (not so until 1707, AFAIK), so when the difference in dates is arrived at in the body, add one more sentence making this clear. Marskell 07:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully made that clear now - I've added a paragraph on the first Jacobite uprising too, to emphasise the point without sledgehammering it. Yomangani ^talk 11:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree with Sandy about the Remove votes. If somebody is working and does a good job, a Remove vote can change. And I'm always closely watching my votes! On the contrary, a quick Remove vote constitutes an incentive for somebody to work. After all, the vote period is the last one after a long period of review. If somebody has started working during this period, we see that, we respect and we don't cast remove votes. It is as easy as that. If nobody works and nobody votes, then this might be a counter-incentive for the improvement of the article. Now, as far as this article is concerned, I donot feel ready to remove my Remove vote:

"Nenner, Howard (1998). The Right to be King: the Succession to the Crown of England, 1603-1714" Is this a printed source? If yes, why don't you mention the page as you should? And why don't you place it in the references as well (all sources of the inline citations should be found in references).
"G. Burnet (1833). History of my own Time." No page mentioned. Not listed in references.
" Brewer, E. Cobham (1898). Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Henry Altemus." No page mentioned. Not listed in references.
In references, I still see only one printed source. I respect on-line sources, but I believe that for this particular personality printed sources are abundant. If you add pages in the printed sources in "Citations" and then include this sources in "References", I'll reconsider this objection of mine.
And, by the way, let's stay on the inline citations. Most of them are not scientific works nor inline articles, but biographies; one or two are from Britanica or Columbia, but most of them are short and unsigned texts. That is why, I regard more printed sources (suitably citated and referenced) as necessary.--Yannismarou 18:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the page numbers, I'm always forgetting to write them down - I'll look at those again. Not sure about the duplication of the cited sources in the notes and references sections though. As I said earlier, this seems somewhat redundant, and I don't see anything in the manual of style about it, so unless you can point me to the appropriate page, I'm not going to do that (to be honest, I'm unlikely to do it even if you do point to the page...life's too short). Yomangani ^talk 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were only two sources listed in the references section and both were already listed in the Notes section, I just removed the old references section and renamed the Notes section to "References". That's ok, right?Maintain 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. Waiting for the page numbers. Yomangani must understand that when he keeps two sections ("Citations" and "References") what he regards as redundant is necessary. Now, it is better, although I prefer to see both "Citations" and "References", because this structure serves better the checking of the sources and is closer to the structure of most scholar researches and articles (you, usually, don't find a scholar article with inline citations, but without references). But, I guess this is a personal taste that I apply in the articles I write and not a rule of WIkipedia - not yet at least! I'll be ok with the page numbers.--Yannismarou 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are now present (and the abortive attempt to refer to a quote from another source using the cite template somewhat corrected). "References" were kept for historical reasons - the two works there were the original references, so covered more than the corresponding inline citations, but since the citations now cover any material that these would have covered previously, I don't have an objection to the removal of the section. We'll agree to disagree over the references/inline citations - we can fight it out over at the Manual of Style sometime. Yomangani ^talk 08:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yomangani's additions satisfy my concerns on the two thrones. Good work.

Re "I regard more printed sources (suitably citated and referenced) as necessary", from Yanni: I regard them as preferable but not as necessary to uphold status. The criteria do not demand them, though individually reviewers may encourage their use. The nature of the Wiki-beast tends toward on-line sources, which, if reliable, should be acceptable. I would like to see this travel site and this site replaced, though. Marskell 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I won't get rid of them, but I will provide other sources for the statements they currently cite. Yomangani ^talk 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although the additional citations are from the current EB - I'll probably come back and change those later (both are bound to be in McCauley's History of England which I don't have here) Yomangani ^talk 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Issues addressed, article cited, nice work. Sandy 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maintain, my remark had to do with the previous status, when the references had almost no sources and the sources mentioned in "Notes" were without pages. Right now I know I cannot object, although I've proposed to raise the demands concerning sources of FAs. As it is now the status quo, I already know and you are absolutely right about the distinction between "necessary" and "preferable". I believe this must change, but for now I am obliged to vote keep. Yannismarou 19:19, 21 September 2006 UTC}}