Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parliament of the United Kingdom/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 17:07, 11 March 2008.
Parliament of the United Kingdom[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Notified WP:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, WP:WikiProject British Government, User:DrKiernan.
- This article has a grand total of one in-line citation, having been promoted four years ago and held up reasonably well, and seems like it should not be hard to bring this one up to code. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandfather. One of Emsworth's best; drawn from four standard sources. Please adjoin a list of points challenged or likely to be challenged, which cannot readily be found in those sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three of those sources are 97, 112 and 243 years old, respectively. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage Dr Kiernan to update where necessary; but I don't see anything Emsworth got wrong. This is partly because he was working at extreme generality; but that's the level where the picture is most stable. The actual procedures of Parliament are from a source five years old. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandfathering was rejected. And we're certainly not applying it to Emsworth at this point in the game. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A excellent article, with a much higher standard than many which have recently made it to the front page. There are plenty of references in related articles which could be carried across. --Rumping (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more inline citations: now has 21 but could do with lots more, but (for me) they are slow to find. ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I'm not too keen on this article. The article is on the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but the History section is mostly about the forerunner Parliaments; the sub-section actually covering the history of the UK Parliament is the shortest. I certainly would not claim that Blackstone is an unreliable source, but can something written in 1765 really be pertinent for something which has only (arguably, I suppose) existed since 1801? I wouldn't say this article is wrong, and I'm not saying remove, but it's insufficiently focused and insufficiently cited for me to say keep. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest a better title? The Parliament of the UK was de facto formed by expansion of the English Parliament rather than a federal merger, so I don't really see this as a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, 1c, direct quotes without citation, too much uncited text, and with the problems we've found in some of the other article Emsworth articles, we need better citation for verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, 1c, the most part of the article appears to be completely unsourced. Gothbag (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.