Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon I of France/archive1

Napoleon I of France
A well-written historical article, I find. --DanielNuyu 07:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. References are a basic requirement of a FA. This article doesn't have any. Jeronimo 07:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Several references were listed as external links by the authours of this article. I took a few significant ones, determined their dates of access by checking the history, and posted them as references. This is really a fine article on the whole, one that has passed through years of editing. --DanielNuyu 08:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If those resources were not properly used to add or fact check material in the article, then retitling them as references is unnaceptable and intellectually dishonest. That it is an otherwise great article doesn't mean it meets all the criteria if it ignores the importance of this one. Now if you have read through those resources and they are reliable and confirm what is in this article, then please let us know to what extent you confirmed that. - Taxman 17:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object&mdash;barely even a start to what we need on Napoleon. Should be a well-organized collection of summaries linking off to a variety of subarticles. Everyking
 * Either provide a specific hole in the article's coverage or don't object on comprehensiveness-related grounds. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am new to Napoleon. Most people are not Napoleon experts. This article was perfect for what I needed. Other sites have endless lists of sub-articles, and they just confuse the new user. Besides, the sub articles can be accessed by clicking on the links. I vote for an award for this article, based on its usefulness to the largest number of people. - Chris
 * Object, since I'm sure there must be more to Napoleon's legacy than just those few paragraphs given to it in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Based on the lack of response above, it doesn't appear the references were used properly, so there are in fact few or none. If that is incorrect, please confirm how. - Taxman 22:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)