Wikipedia:Featured article review/Representative peer/archive2

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 User:Dana boomer 15:36, 2 June 2013 [1].

Representative peer edit

Notified: WP Politics, WP Ireland, and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. The main contributor is long gone.

Review commentary edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has multiple tags, is a 2004 promotion last reviewed in 2007, and notice of the citation situation was given over a year ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes:
- The Erskine May citation is 404 and appears to be a personal website.
- What makes The Peerage a reliable source?
- What makes this a reliable source?
- At least one reference is a bare URL.
- Reference 28 points to a list of search results, instead of the content it is supposed to point to.
- Huge number of dead references that need updating.
- As mentioned, lots of unsourced content from September 2011.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some work on the current citations fixing those I can and trying to find replacements for others. After that I may try to address the missing citation tags. The Erskine May book is on Google books, The peerage has been used all over wikipedia for peerage information and appears to be reliable. The scottishhistory seems to be a complete copy of an official treaty; perhaps I can find the original. ww2censor (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Issues raised in the review section mostly concerned citations and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the ongoing work by ww2censor. Looks like this might be saved. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had food poisoning and no internet for several days, so bear with me. However if anyone else can assist please do as I didn't know the topic before this. ww2censor (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are still 6 tags left out of the original 13 for which I have been unable to find citations though I have inproved several other citations that were questioned. While I expect the tagged statements are valid perhaps someone else can find source for them or possibly copyedit those sentences. I've pretty much done all I can to rescue this one. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and good work Ww2, I'll take over and have been reading up anyway. Just to say two that the article isn't very well written, to say the least, and needs a brush from start to finish. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated Ceoil though I am not the one to copyedit or rewrite it. You are far better at that than I. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous last words Ww ;) Can you keep an eye pls. We have worked well in the past, I would appreciate if you tended at least. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unforced image per WP:IMGSIZE. I'm now down to 3 cn tags left. ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are things going here? Ww2censor, it appears that you and Ceoil have done some very good work on this article. There are a few (I think I saw three?) fact tags still left, and works appears to have stalled. Are we at the point that we can start pinging in reviewers to look over the article? Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes, because, as I wrote last month I was down to 3 tags for which I could not find citations and maybe, in that case, the statements should be removed. I don't really know if they are verifiable, I just can't verify them. Your advise will be happily take but at this stage i've done my best. ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One last citation left. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supplied. Choess (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Seems to be all set now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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