Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Mary I of England
Mary I of England[edit]
- Article is still a Featured article.
I am nominating this article because of its inadequate referencing. It lists a number of references, but gives no detailed referencing correlating particular claims to sources. mgekelly 05:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Please give adequate time for your concerns to be addressed after raising them on the talk. One day is far from sufficient; many editors don't logon everyday. Johnleemk | Talk 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I imagined that 36 hours would be enough time to discern whether anyone was actively watching this page. What is usually considered sufficient? mgekelly 07:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not all people actively watching an article visit it everyday; I imagine that would be quite tedious. A week would probably be good, but that's just my opinion; there's no set time. I'm considering fixing up this article, actually, since it seems like getting references wouldn't be too hard. Anyhow, if I'm not mistaken, our main concern at present is inline references, which while presently an FA criterion, should not unduly force us to defeature old articles. Only if it's clear that nobody at all is interested in helping fix up the article should we defeature them; in an extreme case, Taxman waited over a year to nominate FAs with no references at all. Any article with references is already much better off than a substantial portion of Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. . .I guess. The thing is that there are a couple of claims in there that I am think are contentious, but obviously without references I can't follow them up. OTOH, in fact that there's probably no harm in having an FA with incorrect info - it just means that when it goes on the frontpage, someone'll come along and correct them. I guess this nomination is more an expression of my past annoyance at seeing better articles than this, most recently Karl Marx flunk the FA process. I'll remove the nom tags though, if someone hasn't already done so. mgekelly 08:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not all people actively watching an article visit it everyday; I imagine that would be quite tedious. A week would probably be good, but that's just my opinion; there's no set time. I'm considering fixing up this article, actually, since it seems like getting references wouldn't be too hard. Anyhow, if I'm not mistaken, our main concern at present is inline references, which while presently an FA criterion, should not unduly force us to defeature old articles. Only if it's clear that nobody at all is interested in helping fix up the article should we defeature them; in an extreme case, Taxman waited over a year to nominate FAs with no references at all. Any article with references is already much better off than a substantial portion of Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Invalid nomination as per Johnleemk. Tony 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)As I've pointed out elsewhere in this room, the time factor has not been specified in the procedure above, apparently by consensus. Tony 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)- Speedy keep - The inline cite requirement is not applied to FAs that passed before that requirement took hold. This article lists its references, and that is enough. --mav 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Per all above. Hezzy 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)- Speedy Keep per all above Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep bad reason to remove. --Pedro 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
