Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

 * It is an informative and well-written article anenst a very prominent historical figure. --Anglius 01:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. (Ibaranoff24 03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Weak Object. Article isn't very well referenced, in-line citations should be used with footnotes throughout the context. — Wackymacs 08:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object At first reading it seems complete, but there is a great deal of information freely available not in this article, for instance the British Government awarded him the Wellington family seat and estate at Stratfield Saye House, this is not mentioned. His relationships with his wife, Georgiana Fane,  Mrs Arbuthnot, Lady Jersey etc. are not touched upon.  He was a great collector of art, and as a prime-minister he was unpopular.  None of this seems to be touched upon in this article.  What's there is good but as a whole it seems incomplete and too lightweight for such a well documented figure.  There are also plenty of better paintings (all out of copyright)t which could better illustrate this article. Finally, as Wackymacs says above the referencing is poor. Giano | talk 11:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree that the article does not mention everything about the Duke, but it does impart a large quantity of information anenst his military and political activities, gentlemen. However, I am reluctant to indicate his scandalous private life. The article size is also already somewhat large. I have to admit that I do not really possess a sufficient amount of time to append this article, but I shall add a 'link' to Stratfield Saye House. --Anglius 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, at 32KB this article is not large, in fact for the biography of an important, and very well documented historical figure it is quite small.  One does not have to luridly detail the scandals of his private life, but for a biography to be comprehensive they have to be explained or at least referred to in in an unbiased and non-oppinionated way.  There are other anomalies such as "Wellington is often compared to the 1st Duke of Marlborough, with whom he shared many characteristics, chiefly a transition to politics after a highly successful military career" - who compares him?  Was Marlborough a  Prime Minister?  Were the windows of Marlborough's London house all smashed because Marlborough was an unpopular Prime Minister?  This does not even tell us about the many problems Wellington's  Prime Ministership encountered. Giano | talk 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Signore, I merely mentioned the size because it may be longer than preferable, and because I thought it was a part of the criteria. I appreciate your explanation regarding his personal life. I do agree that the article is not always very specific or explanatory.--Anglius 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong object; the entire "Wellington as soldier" section is a mess of uncited opinion. The rest of the article could do with some inline citations as well&mdash;but they are essential for any evaluation of Wellington's qualities. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is factual, Mr. Lokshin, but I do not know where I would discover references for that section. --Anglius 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Not badly written, but needs work to satisfy Criterion 2(a). The whole text needs fresh eyes. For example:
 * 'The British government was casting about for ways to end Napoleon's threat; and Wellesley helped to supply them.' (Remove 'and' or change the semicolon to a comma.)
 * 'his father was the 1st Earl of Mornington, his eldest brother, who would inherit his father's Earldom, would be created Marquess Wellesley, and two of his other brothers would be raised to the peerage ...' ('Would' as future-in-past is laboured here, and should be rationed; try simple past tense.)
 * 'was to be eliminated at any price necessary' (Remove the last word.)
 * 'oft cited' (Make it 'often-cited' in the 21st-century BrEng.)
 * And yes, it should be BrEng, and is mostly, but for 'defense'. Check for other inconsistencies.
 * In addition, please delink the trivial chronological links (e.g., '20th century' and '1852'), as per WP policy. Leave full dates linked for the auto-format function. It's rather heavily linked, even without the trivial date links, so perhaps search for other opportunities to make for easier reading.
 * I did not notice those errors in punctuation and spelling, and I thank you for mentioning them, sir. However, even though the article is supposed to be succint, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with a slight amount of literary elegance.--Anglius 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If, by 'a slight amount of literary elegance', you're referring to redundancy and archaic language, no, it's better not to have it in this register, which should be as plain and direct as possible. Language can be elegant and plain at the same time; that's the beauty of English. What I'm objecting to is neither. Please go through it and fix it up; the job will take a word-nerd (preferably someone who's unfamiliar with the text) at least an hour, possibly two. Tony 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I shall attempt to shortly, "Tony1." However, I cannot promise anything presently--Anglius 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please attempt to be patient with me, gentlemen.--Anglius 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I intend to do that.--Anglius 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)