Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tynwald Day/archive1

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 removed 19:42, 19 January 2007.

Tynwald Day

Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth and Politics. Sandy (Talk) 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, but lacking any inline citations. Also, a bit short, those who are interested might want to see if this topic can be expanded at all. Just a suggestion. Judgesurreal777 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a bit short"? What is missing? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot. I'll look at adding citations if nobody picks it up (the references section looks fairly comprehensive and I think Lord Emsworth is busy with the rotten boroughs) Yomangani ^talk 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, largely. As such (and this might place me in the majority of Wikipedia readers) the article leaves me with a sense of a tourist brochure. By this I mean that it describes what is going on, what is seen, but doesn't bother with "why."

Here are a few "for examples."

Why is it that this is the only ceremony at this site? If it is such an important cite packed with such meaning, why not conduct all of the business here?
Is everyone entirely united in their admiration of the ceremony and the historical appeals? Is there any dissent at all on the happy Isle, and does this dissent ever influence what happens on Tynwald Day? (And if there is such uniform happiness, why are the Manx so entirely different from every other people within a thousand miles!?!)
Has the ceremony been a rallying point for or against any significant event? Was it fought over? Why or why not?
Is it significant that the current Royal Family seem to show up more frequently than ever before? Does it seem like an honor for the good people of Man when the Royalty drop by, or is it more of a bother? If this is so important to this part of the Empire, why is it that royalty are not always presiding in person?
Do the people seem to respond to one historical era or another in an especially notable way? That is, from which eras are the ceremonies taken? Is all of the tradition, dress and speech as it would be at the time of the establishment of the Isle of Man? from the beginning of the Stuarts? or from a hodge podge of eras? Would a freeman from 1800 feel at home visiting the ceremony today?
This article seemed even more unfinished to me in that I had just been to the New York Times presentation which contained a moving and deep explanation of the curious custom of US Marines celebrating the "birthday of the corps." (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/12/06/world/20061207_MEDIC_FEATURE.html)

The reason I mention it, and would encourage the editors of this article to visit, is that it does a good job of tying the ceremony into the present. It could, I suppose, just show the various quaint little traditions and rituals, but if it only did that it would be trivializing much of what is at the heart of a US marine. I'm a pacifist and believe we glorify war way too much, but was struck, and informed, with insight I had not before experienced.

Isn't this exactly what a great encyclopedia should do?

I guess I am expecting that this Tynwald Day celebration can function as a window into the culture, history and people of the Isle of Man. Yet the article as it now stands makes this event sound a bit like a tourist play--the archaic language and funny clothes make for a bit of drama in an otherwise mundane day.

I do sense there is something else there, that this Tynwald Day is not a fun piece of theatre put on for the tourists, that in order to truly understand the Manx, you must understand Tynwald Day. Is this the case? How could you explain that relevance to those of us who do not already know.

I'm not sure that a lot of additional "facts" are needed. To the contrary, many bits of information given (such as the history of the Gregorian calendar change and the possibility of including guests of honor) may be fruitfully left out, unless they contribute to our understanding of the Day.

I believe I am missing the reason for the facts that are given. This might be thought of as the difference between and encyclopedia and an almanac. The former explains, the latter lists.

I do hope this helps. Roy 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - not a single edit since nominated. Sandy (Talk) 01:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and insufficient length (1b). Marskell 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Lack of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per Lucifer. I've done my bit by alerting eight former contributors. But it's still a ghost town. Pity. Tony 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. No citations.--Yannismarou 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.