Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/England expects that every man will do his duty

England expects that every man will do his duty

 * Article is still a featured article.

No references. Very short - only about 2 screens of text. I very much doubt it would get promoted today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Too short and frankly nothing special. :ChrisG 13:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length... However excellent short articles are also accepted." What is a featured article. That this particular featured article is short was mentioned at the time it was promoted, and the response was that there really wasn't anything left to say - it is comprehensive. The reference requirement was added later, and that alone is not a criterion for removal. &rarr;Raul654 16:34, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me illustrate the shortcomings better, then. From What is...: (and this article isn't) 1) Comprehensive. The section on 'has entered the collective consciousness of the British' is limited just to lead, I'd like to see it discussed further, if this is supposed to be 'comprehensive'. 2) Accurate. Really? Lack of references... I won't mind if external links are used as references, but there should be some. 3) Lenght. I don't mind that it is short. I mind, however, that it is too short, and therefore not excellent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. It's quite a good article, I think, especially in the way that it shows all the semaphore, but there's a bit of weasel language in it. I feel the type of short article that should be featured is one which amazingly condenses the thoughts of a long article into a tiny space, rather than one on a necessarily narrow topic to which little could be effectively added. Deco 07:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and lets not go down the road of deciding that certain content should not be FA. Narrow topics are just as valid as any other. Filiocht 09:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all the reasons in the original discussion. Length is irrelevant. --Auximines 21:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for all the above reasons. Mark1 01:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove - a totally unreferenced article such as this one does not deserve to be an FA. Why should any user of the Wikipedia believe any of its contents? Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 15:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Article makes some very broad statements including that the inscription on Nelson's tomb is wrong but that this article is right on the exact wording of the phrase. It claims in the text that ship logs and accounts of the crew were consulted but no information is given as to the source of these claims.  For making such strong statements that is unacceptable.  Without discussion of where these claims can be verified the reader is in the position of having to accept the text and nothing more.  As to too short, that is not a valid reason to remove. Only being not comprehensive is. To claim not comprehensive you would need to find something it really should cover but doesn't. - Taxman 15:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I love this article. It's one of the most enjoyable articles I've read in a long time. Is it long enough? Yes. Is it comprehensive? Yes, enough so for me. It is, in my opinion, an excellent FA &mdash; provided, of course, it's all true!. Does it need references? Most definitely. Would I vote "support", were it to be nominated on FAC? No, the references thing. Should it be kept as an FA anyway? I don't know. What are the criterion for this? Must "old" FAs meet current standards? Or not? There does not seem to be any consensus on this. Paul August  &#9742; 17:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is not consensus; it seems to be split instead. So you can decide your vote and let others vote theirs. What is not under dispute is that the article no longer meets the current FA criteria. The only votes not to remove articles that do not have references come from those feeling that retroactive application of new requirements is unfair. I feel references are critical to the reliability of Wikipedia and are the only thing that can silence critics that can validly claim that an article without references is untrustworthy. Therefore I do feel lack of references, especially on potentially contentious points of fact, is enough to remove an article from being a FA.  Any article that the only reason it would not pass FAC again is the lack of references would be very easy to make a FA again: just add the references. So why should it be such a big deal to remove articles that no longer meet the criteria?  Wikipedia would be better now and better poised for the long term if every FA was well referenced. At least then we could point to our best articles and say they are reliable. - Taxman 18:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Length is irrelevant, provided the article is comprehensive enough.  I can see concerns about "entered the collective consciousness of the British", and I've added a short "after the battle" section to expand on this (and to prevent run-on in the previous "signals during the battle" section, although I am also concerned that the article should not lose its commendably tight focus).  The phrase really is very well known - what kind of reference do you expect?  A survey?  Most of the external links are actually references and support the contents, so I've added a "references" heading too.  Some paper references would be a welcome addition, but the electronic ones are good enough for me.  -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User ALoan asks "what kind of reference do you expect?". A very reasonable question, so I have added one to the article to illustrate what's needed here. The sending of the signal "engage the enemy more closely" is now referenced with a link to Google Print's copy of Iron Admirals, Ronald W Andidora, page 5 (ISBN 0313312664). This is the kind of detailed, contextual reference that needs to be ubiqitous in Wikipedia if it is going to have a chance of fighting off the increasing number of attacks on its accuracy and reliability. --Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world Neoconned 21:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Length is irrelevant. Well written article (some minor tweaks could make the transition to the semephone graphic better).
 * Keep. Problems (except un-fixable length) seem to have been addressed. Looks great to me.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)