Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Line of succession to the British Throne/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Line of succession to the British Throne[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Line of succession to the British Throne/closure box Self-renominated because the issues preventing success in the previous nomination have been largely overcome DBD 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

References? (not just for the "rules", but also for the names and other information in the article) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd argue that the rules are the reference for the people, by their very nature... DBD 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paul Theroff's Online Gotha has information about Europe's royal families. Great Britain's list starts with George I, and from there, one could trace his descendants through some of the other pages on the site. I personally have used that as a source to add missing persons to the list. In addition, there's also a list of the descendants of Electress Sophia. If these aren't already listed as references, I'll go ahead and add them now. Added! Morhange 05:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and endorse Speedy Close. No inline citations. Todd661 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Woah! Surely we can see that inline citations are exactly easy in the line - either we find a separate source for each person, source everyone to the same source(s) (i.e. repeat all the sources for all XXXX people), or leave the sources as general ones at the end. DBD 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the key criteria for a Featured List says that the article should be complemented by appropriate inline citations. This article is not complemented by appropriate inline citations - it doesn't have any. See WP:REF and also my current nom for ideas. Todd661 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't read "complemented" to mean required. At least two od the lists passed in April 2007 lack in-line cites, and at least three passed so far this month also lack them. No opinion of this list just yet though. Dsmdgold 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Under no circumstance should such a list be "speedily closed", when in my opinion it has sufficient referencing. --Phoenix 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think an article with this much prose needs in line citations. I have added some [citation needed] tags where I think they are needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd661 (talkcontribs) 15:53, May 8, 2007
So be it, but it certainly shouldn't be speedily closed. --Phoenix 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see some references, they're just not cited inline. Should be an easy fix. Instead of riddling the article with all those tags, perhaps one cleanup tagh with a talk page note that the citations need to be formatted inline is cleaner. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think it is much cleaner, if it says this sentence needs references, rather than saying...this page needs a cleanup. If this user is fair dinkum about getting this page featured, the [citation needed] tags should be gone in no time.Todd661 10:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have enough experience with featured lists to vote here, but I wanted to comment on the inline cites. I don't think that the information about the parliamentary acts should have inline cites; the sources are provided at the main articles on the acts. But information about specific individuals should be cited. Even if there is an RS with a full list of those in line, citations would be appropriate for those who are not in line, expected to be baptised Catholic, etc. Matchups 16:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Would that not create a ridiculous quantity of inline cites? --Phoenix 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose A number of problems.
References: The list mentions four web sites as references. Given the amount written about the royal family, there must surely be a book you can find that lists the line of succession to some level of detail. All references should have author, date of publication, publisher, title, and for websites, the access date. Anyway, lets look at each one:
Before the last two refs were added, the list claimed the first ref was the source of the names.
Vagueness: Saying "At present this page attempts to list" isn't acceptable in an encyclopaedia. The woolly phrase "as well as some of the living descendants of" doesn't explain why not all are listed. The "other monarchs" section says "about nnn".
Length: The list has 1269 entries but it looks like there are bits of more to come at the end. It is very hard to see how a textual, manually generated list this long could possibly be accurate or useful. From the refs given, I don't know how someone could verify, for example, that HRH Princess Olga of Hanover (b. 1958) was #400 without a fair amount of original research.
Presentation: The layout is basic and uninspiring. Not particularly professional and not our very best work.
Colin°Talk 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)