Wikipedia:Featured article review/Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 by Marskell 17:27, 12 August 2009 [1].
Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Review commentary[edit]
- Listed parties notified.
Article was promoted four years ago. There is a strong lack of citations, and those that already exist, only list the book, without specifying whereabouts in the book the information is from. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lord and Lady Dufferin in Manitoba.jpg: PD of course, but source and author missing. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per opening statement YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above FA criteria concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. The prose isn't horrible -- it's rough in spots, but adequate -- but the citations are few in places and nonexistent in most. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. Having looked at the article, the only sentence I would have difficulty attributing to a source is the death of Dufferin's oldest son, which is neither challenged nor likely to be challenged. Those who want more should tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per FA criteria concerns. It seems like a fine article, but being able to supply sources is not enough to satisfy the criteria: the article must actually cite the sources. Also, the image concerns raised are valid and have not been addressed. Eubulides (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it does. The only section where the attribution is not clear is the one I mentioned; it isn't controversial, and is doubtless covered in Complete Peerage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.