Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration comedy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:28, 16 March 2009

Restoration comedy

While this article's content is probably fine, it contains no inline citations, only a list of references at the end. The article was promoted to FA status in 2004, when standards on referencing were much lower, and it would not pass muster today. Inline citations are necessary because the reader cannot be sure that all the information in the article really is supported by the books listed at the end. The article should not remain an FA unless this problem is rectified by knowledgeable editors.Downstage right (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If is "probably fine", then I suggest you take yourself off and find one that is probably not! Wikipedia has a 10,001 and more pages that are abysmal - have you some objection to criticising them, or if this page upsets you so, getting a few books and sourcing the cites yourself? If not, assume good faith, and trust that an editor of long standing such as Bishonen may just possibly be telling the truth and using the references that she has listed. If you don't want to do the hard work yourself don't ask others too. Giano (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that people who know the subject well (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. Downstage right (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Featured article review Buckingham Palace so that you know what is in store for your nomination. Buckingham Palace was nominated on similar grounds. The editors who rose in defense are predicted to be the same group as for this one. Don't take it personally. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:58, 16 March 2009 edit Downstage right (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 807 edits →Restoration comedy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:28, 16 March 2009 edit undo Mattisse (talk \| contribs) 78,542 edits →Restoration comedy: cmt Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:

	:::Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that ''people who know the subject well'' (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. [[User:Downstage right\|Downstage right]] ([[User talk:Downstage right\|talk]]) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)		:::Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that ''people who know the subject well'' (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. [[User:Downstage right\|Downstage right]] ([[User talk:Downstage right\|talk]]) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

			::::I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Buckingham_Palace\|Featured article review Buckingham Palace]] so that you know what is in store for your nomination. [[Buckingham Palace]] was nominated on similar grounds. The editors who rose in defense are predicted to be the same group as for this one. Don't take it personally. —[[User:Mattisse\|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse\|Talk]]) 04:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)