Wikipedia:Featured article review/England expects that every man will do his duty/archive1

England expects that every man will do his duty edit

Messages left at User talk:Zoney, Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England expects that every man will do his duty is no longer up to FA criteria, I reckon. It was in 2004, but no longer. --Knotted 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're relying on nominators to set the directions for the reviews, at least initially. Which FA criteria do you think are at issue? Tony 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, well, mainly because this FA is a heck of a lot shorter than the other ones! --Knotted 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By right the nominator should set the direction of the review, so that steps are actionable. Having said that, inline citations are needed (1. c.), and the "References in Popular Culture" section needs a cleanup from its bullet style format which creates disjointed prose. All paragraphs in the section should be tied together to create an orderly, cohesive section which flows smoothly (1. a.). LuciferMorgan 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems small to me for FAC. I also want to point out a few more things:

There are no sources, bibliography, references! This is totally inacceptable for a FA.
No inline citations.
The section "References in popular culture" looks like a Trivia section or a long list, which are both inacceptable for FAs. The section should be turned into prose.

As it is now, the article does not deserve FA status.--Yannismarou 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph under the heading ‘Usage in football’ is completely irrelevant IMO, and the article has already stated that the phrase had entered English popular consciousness. I totally disagree with the analysis of last part of that section which has more to do with the nation's psyche after losing a football match than anything to do with the article's subject!

Under referenced No citations Too short Raymond Palmer 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there isn't a "no short" criteria for FAs. To make your objection actionable, you must say which pieces of information are missing to make it "Comprehensive" (1b).--BMF81 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the article is already short and half of it is trivia and the rest is unsourced, then there is a problem with the length as well.--Yannismarou 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there is a "too short" article in a way, and I think Raymond Palmer's objections are actionable. The GA process was created for articles under 15kb, and this doesn't even near 10kb. Worthy references on the subject can be named, and also inline citations can be added to the article. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- GA has no official status as the "only badge of honour for short articles". If a short article is comprehensive and otherwise meets the criteria it can be an FA (I'm not saying this particular article does or doesn't meet those criteria). --kingboyk 10:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~2 references for a featured article? I'm sorry, but that alone tells me that this article no longer meets featured article criteria.~~ References seem fine now, though I'm not an expert in the matter --Zantastik talk 01:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've partially rewritten the article today but there are still a few references to track down for the popular culture section, and the lead needs some work. I'll come back to it tomorrow or Monday, but please point out anything else that needs fixing. Yomangani ^talk 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished working on this - it's thoroughly referenced with inline citations; the irrelevant details (such as the section on football) have been removed; the popular culture section has been rewritten; and some more details have been added to the rest of the article. I don't think it is going to get any longer, but then again, I don't think "too short" has ever been a valid objection: The GA process can't make up its collective mind what its purpose is, and even if it could, I don't think we should be quoting one of its criteria as if it is an explicit criterion for exclusion from FA status. Yomangani ^talk 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Comment Neat, tidy – more importantly, well written and apposite. The irrelevancies are gone. Sufficiently detailed. Good work on an interesting subject. Raymond Palmer 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yomangani ^talk has done some nice work and addressed my objections. Having said that, I don't feel the article is comprehensive enough which is one of the FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a pointer to where you think it is lacking? Yomangani ^talk 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We donot oppose or support here. The article is much better now. When I read it in detail in due time, I'll comment on its comprehensiveness.--Yannismarou 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's 15kb, and well written articles 15kb and under are usually considered GA material according to GA guidelines. It's best to overall find out what other material you can add to the article. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that the GA guidelines—whatever they happen to be this week—have absolutely nothing to do with whether an article meets the FA criteria. Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good thanks to work by Yomangani; suggest it can be closed without FARC. Sandy 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but too small, so it should go to FARC based on comprehensiveness. LuciferMorgan 16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'll go per Sandy. The article is small but seems comprehensive. If LuciferMorgan indicates what particular topic needs further development and expansion and why it is not comprehensive right now, I may reconsider my position. --Yannismarou 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also reconsider if LuciferMorgan (or anybody else) can point out where it is lacking. The topic area is extremely narrow and it's tempting to stray away from the subject, but I don't think there's anything to add other than padding or original research. Length and comprehensiveness are not synonyms. Yomangani ^talk 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status. Agree: comprehensiveness, not length, is the criteria. If Lucifer points out something that is missing and/or other work that needs doing we can move it down; otherwise, I'll close this in a day. Marskell 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]