Wikipedia:Featured article review/Treaty of Devol/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 kept 18:42, 30 September 2007.
Treaty of Devol[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Alerted main contributor (Adam Bishop) and four WikiProjects listed on article talk page.
Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites. --RelHistBuff 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if the above nomination was ever progressed. Renominating for the same reason. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did nominate the article, but at the time there was an overload of articles in the FAR process so I withdrew it temporarily. Since it has been renominated, I will give more details about the 1c criterion problem. The prose contain certain passive constructions such as
- It was generally understood
- It was argued that
- It is notable
These should reworded and/or cited. Also the quote should have a cite. There are clearly elements of a historian's analysis such as
- The Crusaders seem to have felt
- perhaps, he felt he had lost
- It may have been written
- The treaty appears to be
- the proceedings must have been
- he may have also wanted
These should be cited to give credit to the historian that did the analysis. Otherwise it looks like original research. --RelHistBuff 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the notifications listed at the top old or new; has anyone notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdrew it before I notified anyone so I assume that OpenToppedBus made the notifications. --RelHistBuff 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was me - notified yesterday. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdrew it before I notified anyone so I assume that OpenToppedBus made the notifications. --RelHistBuff 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aside from citations, the article needs a significant ce, and a more substantial lead. But there is work going on. Ceoil 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the good work! Marskell 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! We try!--Yannismarou 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good save! It’s a completely different article now. I see some minor issues, but not enough to defeature. --RelHistBuff 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if MOS is followed WRT end-periods of non-sentence captions, and en dashes for page ranges. Tony (talk) 11:07, 30 September 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.