Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Peerage/archive1

History of the Peerage
(Uncontested -- July 10)

A self-nomination. -- Emsworth ke4roh 02:34, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, again. Great work. James F. (talk) 10:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. Satori 18:52, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I can find anything really objectionable in this article. Support.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  23:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It is well written. One minor note, the link to James Parke doesn't have an article yet.  Other than that, perfect.  Revth 04:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - "I've learned something today" Palnu 04:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Another good one.  195.167.169.36 16:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * (Not an objection) Looks fine, but I have some minor remarks: 1) the Queen Anne image is not dated. I assume it is contemporary (so no coypright issue), but I'd like to be sure. 2) The References section is awfully short, and while the 1911 EB might be a good source and is available only, it certainly doesn't contain recent information, and updated modern views. Any more recent reference works? I'd support with these two issues fixed. Jeronimo 17:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This objection was found under "Hereditary peers" nomination. Since there is no image of Anne on that page, and the References section includes ten references, I presume that this objection belongs in the "History of the Peerage" section? I have therefore moved it. -- Emsworth 17:07, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Queen Anne's image has been dated to circa 1702. As to the references: I added a few works, but only those that I actually used in creating the article (as is the practice for all other articles that I have created). -- Emsworth 17:21, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to say I agree with this practice. Adding references just for the sake of FAC hoop-jumping, as has been suggested and indeed implemented in the past, is not a great idea. Pcb21| Pete 18:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support now, thanks for the replies (and sorry for the confusion with replying to the wrong article). BTW, I wasn't asking to add more references for the sake of having more references; I just think a good article should include pointers to major works on the topic, even if they haven't been used in creating the article. I helps readers to find more information about the topic if they want to. They shouldn't be added because I (or anybody else) requested them, but because they would improve the article. Jeronimo 20:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would help if the captions were full sentences explaining why each person got his or her picture in the article. Tips at Captions.  Thanks! -- ke4roh 23:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the idea of having complete sentences in captions. In this page, each image is adjacent to relevant content. Hence, it is unnecessary to restate information found in the article. Furthermore, the extended size of the picture box appears wholly inelegant. Thus, I must respectfully disagree with the suggestion. -- Emsworth 00:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I see your point since the text is so closely tied to the pictures. Different people read the article different ways. When I look at an article, I read the first paragraph (or until I hit information overload for that topic) and scan through for anything else interesting, looking at each of the pictures and captions along the way. Tank reads well that way. The captions tell something about the pictures &amp;mdash; and most benefit from it. Admittedly, it's more challenging to write a captivating caption about a portrait, especially in this case, since the information is adjacent in the text &mdash; What about putting a teaser in the caption to draw the reader into the article: "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is. (You might like to see Wikipedia_talk:Captions which addresses short identifying captions of objects.) --
 * Agreed; long captions are not a good idea in well-written texts. James F. (talk) 14:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. 172 22:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)