Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Principality of Sealand/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Principality of Sealand

 * previous FAC
 * FARC
 * Former featured article:  Note to Raul: has been on main page

I'm nominating (self-nomination) this article for featured article because it has significantly improved since the last time it was a featured article. It states clearly what the Principality of Sealand is, with enough detail. There are seperate articles for those topics that required more detail, so this article does not have too much detail either. It now has 39 references, 31 more than when it was last demoted and any citations that were required have been added.Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC) NOTE:If a comment or opposition is written, remember to remove it using when what should have been corrected has been corrected. Since I have nominated this article, some of the comments below have not been removed when the article was corrected. If a user who has commented or opposed does not think that the article has been corrected, then that user should reply. There have also been contradictions in the comments and oppositions made - some comments and oppositions contradict other users' comments and oppositions. If a comment or opposition is not replied to it will be disregarded. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that the coat of arms does not bear copyright holder attribution, as is requested at Image:Coat of Arms of Sealand.png. Also, I tend to think that the article should have more citations. I personally lean to at least one, and hopefully two, citations per paragraph. John Carter 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The coat of arms now has copyright holder attribution, however I think that 39 citations should be sufficient, unless you have any suggestions to the contrary. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I love Sealand, so I hesitate to oppose, but there are several very small sections which should probably be merged into larger paragraphs. Some of the content is also unsourced. Perspicacite 21:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have merged some of the smaller paragraphs together so that information of the same topic was grouped together. I have also added 9 more references, which brings the total amount of references to 48 (40 more than when the article was demoted). These additional references have been placed throughout the article, and also not all the references are from the internet - some are also from the book "Lonely Planet guide to Micronations", meaning that there is now a variety of types of sources. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still see one-sentence paragraphs, so for now, I oppose. Perspicacite 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The smaller paragraphs have been merged into larger paragraphs. There are no longer any one-sentence paragraphs. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The recent events section needs work. Too much "On 28 February 2007..." This all needs to be integrated into a paragraph. KnightLago 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have merged these small paragraphs into much larger paragraphs, so that they no longer represent bullet points that begin with "On 28 February 2007...". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you also need to move the Sealand launches official newspaper section into another section, maybe the recent events section. 2 lines don't need to be their own section. KnightLago 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The sections have now been merged into one recent events section. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I just saw the references, they are a mess. See WP:CIT and use the citation templates and fill in as much information as possible. If you can bring them up to par I will reconsider. You also need to remove a lot of links from the links section. KnightLago 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the references using the templates and filled in as much information as possible. Also I have removed any unecessary links from the links section - leaving only the links to Sealandic websites. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See cite web for citing websites. You need the title, accessdate, author if given, date of publication if given, and publisher. See WP:CIT to see what is required depending on the type of source. To see good citations look at a WP:FA and see how they do their citations. KnightLago 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * More information has been added to the references section using the templates. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is going on with reference 1? 5 should include a date of publication. 6 the date of publication should not be in the title. 11 and 14 are missing dates of publication. 15 and 16 have incorrect titles. 17 and 18 need publication dates. 19 is missing the full title of the publisher. 20 needs publication date. I only went through the first 20, you need to check the remainder for the same problems. KnightLago 12:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 1 is there for copyright status. The date in reference 6 is not a date of publication, but is when the court decision took place. References 15 and 16 do not have incorrect titles - Inmonaranja is used on the new Sealand transfer stamp, and the title of their website. All other references have been fixed, including the references beyond reference 20. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ref 1 is correct. I have never seen an image link to the references section before. Also, did User:Zscout370 create the image or modify it? Because the image's page says it has been released but requires attribution to where it was taken from. I am not really sure what is going on with this pic. Maybe someone with more knowledge of images could take a look. 5 is incorrect still. 6, the date is not part of the name of the case, so why include it in the title? And the articles with "Published January 8 2007" etc are incorrect. Check the template for news, you should use the date field for the date of publication. KnightLago 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced the cite web templates with cite news templates if the reference was a news article. For reference 6 I removed the date from the title. Because reference 5 is a news article, I used the cite news template, but the date of the article is "July 2000", no more information is given - therfore I left date of publication as "July 2000". The Coat of Arms picture requires attribution - from what the page states, User:Zscout370 didn't create the image (the references section has been edited to show this) - it seems to come from the Sealand Government website). Copyright is held by the Government of Sealand (see copyright status on left of website. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message with someone that has OTRS access to find out what is the exact permission for this picture since it appears to be copyrighted by the Principality of Sealand. KnightLago 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The claims made in the article are not substantiated by the sources given. For example, "is sometimes cited[3] in debates as an interesting case study" (No, it was cited once, in an unpublished dissertation, that "Apparently" it might be a good wheeze to escape internet restrictions); and "Sealand's royal family have travelled to many countries on their Sealand passports" (No, they claim to have travelled to other countries. Note the lawyer's wording: "supported by the fact, as you have advised," (my italics). That could mean England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which as British citizens they can quite happily do without showing documentation.) Any information in the article deriving from Sealand itself must be qualified, as they are biased sources and clearly non-neutral; any information from the Press must be qualified because the Press are often not providing news in this instance, but amusement. I think you should have restricted yourself to academic and legal references, as these may be the only reliable sources on this subject. DrKiernan 09:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the sentences mentioned above so that the references support them. However, information on Sealand on the internet is limited compared to, for example, the United kingdom or the United States of America. Most sources of information are from the Government of the Principality of Sealand, Sealand News and news sources. Academic and legal references are extremely limited in number - the only ones I could find were the legal opinions on Sealand. Articles with a limited amount of sources, such as the Principality of Sealand, rely on all these sources to support the information in them, and featured article status requires a suitable amount of ciations. The Government of the Principality of Sealand, Sealand News are both reliable sources of information, but these are just two sources of information - more are required, and I can't delete the references from the other sources, the amount of sources of information is already very limited. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I limited the number of references to academic and legal references, The amount of references would decrease significantly. A lack of references was the reason why this article was demoted in the past, so I don't see how reducing the number of citations will promote this article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per my earlier reservations regarding insufficient referencing above and all those cited by others. John Carter 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your earlier suggestions regarding insufficient referencing asked for more citations, but DrKiernan suggests using "academic and legal references, as these may be the only reliable sources on this subject." As stated above, I can't delete the references from the other sources, the amount of sources of information is already very limited. To only use academic and legal references in the article would mean eliminating many references, but to add more references would mean a smaller percentage of academic and legal references. I can't improve the article in both ways. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that to improve this article adding more references is the better option rather than limiting them. By limitng references much of the article's information would have no source - leaving any information without references to be easily deleted. Also, this article was previously demoted for having too few references. Approximately how many references should be added to reach a suitable amount? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no right number. The right amount is the amount necessary to throughly cite all claims made. Keep the sources you have. If you have a better source that is unrelated to the government itself use it and remove the government reference. But try and add more 3rd party sources. KnightLago 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested earlier that at least 2 citations per paragraph is a suitable target, so I will list all the paragraphs that require 2 citations, and the paragraphs that require 1 citation to achieve this. There is no maximum to how many citations there should be, so more references would be better. If references are added to a paragraph, the paragraph can be removed from the list below using . 3rd party sources are the best sources to use. A complete list will bring the total amount of references to 64. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragraphs requiring 2 citations


 * Third paragraph
 * Twenty first pargraph (Motto and anthem section)


 * Paragraphs requiring 1 citation


 * First paragraph
 * Second paragraph
 * Fourth paragraph
 * Seventh paragraph
 * Twelfth paragraph (First paragraph in Bates Family section)
 * Thirteenth paragraph
 * Fourteenth paragraph
 * Fifteenth paragraph
 * Seventeeth paragraph
 * Eighteenth paragraph
 * Nineteenth paragraph
 * Twentieth paragraph (Coins section)
 * Twenty second paragraph
 * Twenty third paragraph

What you are doing is not correct. The correct amount of citations per paragraph is the amount needed to cite all claims made. So it could be 2, or 10. I think just having 2 per an entire paragraph may not cut it in most cases. KnightLago 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Also, I tend to think that the article should have more citations. I personally lean to at least one, and hopefully two, citations per paragraph." The comments and oppositions are contradicting themselves, it seems that some users are not replying to or removing their comments and oppositions. I have added a section to so that more users, if they can find sources, can add as many references as necessary to the article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever said that is wrong. See my comment above for the correct amount. KnightLago 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added more references to the article where they were required. I added references to the following sections:


 * History of the fort
 * Motto and anthem
 * Sports and activities
 * The GDP of Sealand

The total amount of references is now 59, 51 more than when the article was last demoted. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your changes, but I'm still not happy, even looking at the very first sentence: "Sealand is a micronation". The sources (except the Sealand News) do not support that. It's within British territorial waters. Their argument may have held when Britain's limit was 3 miles, but now it's 12 miles, the court rulings would probably be quite different and if they try broadcasting a pirate radio station again... DrKiernan 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Principality of Sealand does not see itself as a micronation, nowhere does it officially state that it is a micronation. When the Principality was founded, its territory was in international waters. It was founded before a law was passed by the UN stating that nations cannot be founded on platforms, and it was founded before the UK extended its territorial waters limit from 3nm to 12nm. The British and Sealandic territories therefore border eachother near the British coast in the North Sea. Sealandic territory must be considered because the Principality has many laws supporting its claim to sovereignty and has been recognised many times over throughout its history. Therefore, even if the UK does not recognise this, the Principality is not in British territorial waters and the court rulings during the time that the Principality was not in British claimed waters support this. I agree that the first sentence is misleading, micronation seems to be what the Principality was labelled as just because it has never been "officially" recognised by the UN or the UK. Some people consider it a micronation, and others a microstate. The problem with using microstate is that there are people who will argue that the Principality is not a country, and would sooner base this on their own opinions rather than legal facts. I suggest replacing micronation with microstate as legally (using facts which Wikipedia requires) it is a nation, but whether that edit would stay I can't guarantee. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found a reference that shows that the Principality of Sealand does see itself as a microstate, and not a micronation. The reference can be found here. Therefore it is incorrect to state at the top of the article that Sealand is a micronation - the first sentence has to be changed. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What it sees itself as is a matter of note - but is also largely irrelevant from the perspective of taxonomy. What it actually is, is an ephemeral statelike entity - ie, by definition, a micronation. That is how virtually all reliable external sources refer to it. --Gene_poole 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But there are those who do not consider it a statelike entity, but a nation. Many of these external sources do not base their view of Sealand as a micronation on legal facts - it is just an opinion. This opinion has only been used because there are people who cannot accept that the Principality of Sealand can be a nation, even if there are legal facts to prove that it is a nation. To say "The Principality of Sealand is a micronation" would be against WP:NPOV because that sentence is just the opinion. What about those that do see Sealand as a nation? Their opinon isn't just an opinion, it is a statement supported by laws and facts. Why isn't this statement included into the article? There must be a way of rewriting the sentence so that it is a more accurate definition of the Principality. -- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.