Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Traditional counties of England

Traditional counties of England edit

Article is no longer a featured article.

Simply no references nor inline citations, it was featured two years ago, and fails 2 (c). ^KILO-_LIMA 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove- lack of references. The lead is slighty too long, based on WP:LEAD. An excessive amount of wiki-linking is done to years also. AndyZ 23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the lead. I'd humbly suggest that, rather than demote a very nice article, it might be prudent simply to reference the article. If that's the only objection to a particular article, I guess I don't see a crying need to delist. But I'm out of touch with the current FA guidelines, no doubt, and I won't fight that battle here. Jwrosenzweig 05:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree referencing it would be great. I just don't have the familiarity with the subject to do it among other reasons. - Taxman ^Talk 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Part of the difficulty is that not just any sources will do...if we want references, they ought to be the references that were consulted in the production of the article...and if we can't track down the author/originator of a particular paragraph, sentence, or phrase, we have a hard time doing that. With old and relatively well-established articles, perhaps we ought to establish some guidelines for what references are acceptable...in this case, is it enough for me to add the names of some books on the topic of "traditional counties", and if not, what standard do I need to meet in order to add a source as a reference if I'm admitting off the bat I didn't write one word of the article in question? Jwrosenzweig 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true; see WP:CITE#When_you_verify_content. Verifying content is very important (and I do it many times on FARC), so even if the original authors can't be tracked down, at least the information can be verified. AndyZ 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be referenced within a reasonable time, I'd be happy to keep, but as reference-less as it is now, I'd vote for a removal. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless it can be well referenced within the next two weeks. - Taxman ^Talk 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Prose not good enough. For example:

"The establishment of the usually accepted set of counties began in the 12th century (though many assumed their modern form long before then), although it did not become finalised until the 16th century. Tony 08:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove POV magnet. This whole topic is largely the invention of two tiny pressure groups: County Watch and the grand-sounding, and almost invisible, "Association of British Counties" (sic). There is no such thing as a "traditional county": it is pure POV as to which counties are "traditional" and which are not. This whole article ought to be merged with Counties of England.--Mais oui! 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have an agenda to remove traditional counties from Wikipedia based on your own prejudices. There very much is such a thing as a traditional/ancient or geographic/historic county. The GRO mentioned them in the census of 1891 as separate areas from the newly-formed local government areas. The government issued a statement on the coming in to force of the Local Government Act 1972 that traditional boundaries were not altered by the Act. You are one of the bury-your-head-in-the-sand types who doesn't want to bother reading the legislation or listening to the government. Owain (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avon? Huntingdonshire? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Dire lack of citations and lack of explicit information regarding the subject. Schizmatic 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]