Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/archive1

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
I feel that since this article is both well-written and informative on the reign of Queen Elizabeth II that it should be our next featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fading Light (talk • contribs) 01:24, March 20, 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are a number of reasons to oppose this article, but the most notable are (a) insufficient referencing and (b) because she is still Queen. As long as she is Queen, the article is not stable enough to become an FA; this was also an argument used in opposition to other FAs for current politicians or world leaders. Citations, preferably footnotes, are also needed so that the article is verifiable. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 03:14 (UTC)
 * Tony Blair is a featured article even though he is the incumbent Prime Minister. --Ter e nce Ong 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree on this point. I've always assumed that the 'stability' requirement meant that there isn't still huge debate and revert-warring going on over the article (which would obviously mean that a featured article might rapidly change to junk) - but I don't imagine it means that subjects where real-world facts are still being accumulated can't be FA's - that would exclude a large number of important topics from ever being featured. (However, there are sufficient other reasons to Oppose - so this is a moot point) SteveBaker 15:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Steve and Terence. Saying we can't have FAs on living politicans or heads of state is like insisting we should only have FAs on extinct languages. And Elizabeth II isn't really all that controversial to begin with.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - (a) Four of the images have unacceptable copyright status - all of the others are listed as 'fair use'. (b) Definitely insufficient references.  There must be a bazillion books written on this subject - there is no excuse for not using them to back up the facts in this lengthy article. SteveBaker 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The above reasons other users stated concern me. The article has lack of sources and references and is not very well written after all. This article definitely needs more improvement, and sources must be verifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)