Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon I of France/archive2

Napoleon I of France

 * This article is a former featured article candidate. You can view its previous nomination here

This was a failed FAC from several months ago, but it has had around 700 edits since then, and I think it deserves another shot at featured status. -- ⟳ ausa کui × 05:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object 1) those headings make the ToC ugly. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) Overall page size 50kb! The article should be written in summary style. 3) Phrases such as It appeared the Napoleon of old was back.... This is not written in encyclopedic style.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. The image Image:NapLogo copy.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I took that out to avoid your objection, but I guess some friendly fellow decided to put it back in. Oh well -- ⟳ ausa کui × 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Article should be written in summary style, sections which have more information than necessary should split off into their own article. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I agree about the summary style. This article is too long, and some of the information is redundant with related articles like Napoleonic Wars. Phil s 10:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, and think it should go back to Peer review. "In May, 2005 a team of Swiss physicians claimed&hellip; A team of physicians from the University of Monterspertoli led by Professor Biondi recently [when?] confirmed this." No citations for any of this, and pretty obviously the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 12:18 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)
 * Support, I am a Napolean expert and this article is pretty good in summarizing him. This article failed previously to mentioned in Featured Article, but after more than 1000 edits.  I think it deserves another chance.
 * Object. I don't think that the article is too long, but I am dissapointed that there are so few inline citations. Out of 5 notes, nr 1 and 2 seem to be broken (not linked in main body). As for comprehensivness, I realize the article is already long (but there are FAs close to twice his lenght), and I'd like to see Polish Legions in Italy linked somewhere in the article. Finally, there seem to be a copyvio problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object . Oppose.  No response to any objections, no improvement to the article.  See comments below.  The article has a serious shortage of line citations and violates WP:NPOV.  For example, the introduction praises the Napoleonic Code and describes Napoleon as a benevolent despot.  Nowhere in this article do I see that he also reimposed slavery on the French Caribbean (the revolution had ended it) or that the Napoleonic Code not only erased all the revolution's advances in women's rights, but imposed new inequalities that had not been a part of the Ancien Régime.  Married women in France had enjoyed property rights until Napoleon's era.  Moreover, his continuous wars decimated the adult male population so badly that after he escaped from Elba he could scarcely raise an army.  A pro-France and pro-Napoleon POV seeps into other issues, such as the unqualified assertion of the rather controversial view that the Russians deliberately burned Moscow in 1812. Durova 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, strangely, this nomination includes a reposting of several unanswered objections from six months ago. I've tried to solicit attention at the Napoleonic Era group of the military history project.  If no one is interested in attending this nomination and bringing the article up to FA quality I'll convert my objection to an opposing vote (quite sadly, since Wikipedia clearly needs a feature quality biography of this man). Durova 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, I don't see how the following can be interrpreted as Pro-Bonaparte/Pro-french POV: "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost. And it was all such a great waste, for when the self-proclaimed tête d'armée was done, France's 'losses were permanent' and she 'began to slip from her position as the leading power in Europe to second-class status—that was Bonaparte's true legacy.'" This is a balanced, comprehensive and well-written if not consistantly brillant article. It passes my review. Especially since I still feel somewhat "dirty" about giving a passing grade to World War II, which is not IMO, as good as this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. It's just too long, there isn't much else wrong. I would also note that 5 references for 53kb of text, especially when each is only cited once, is a little bit on the short side. I'd add refs and shorten the text. Staxringold 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)