Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward VIII/archive1


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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC).

Edward VIII

 * Notified: DrKay, Politics, WT:MILHIST, WT:UK

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues versus the FA criteria, including uncited text and MOS problems (image sandwiching, among others). Furthermore, recent scholarly sources including the latest biography are not cited, meaning the article is under-researched. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The couple of image sandwichesw look fine to me, even at 400px default. Powell's book is not exactly a full biography, but a treatment of what he says is a major theme in the Duke's life - but however much he liked aspects of America, he never lived there, & I don't see the omission as fatal. It should go in a further reading section though. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, reviews indicate that the book is a significant work which advances new ideas about the article subject. Without incorporating new scholarship the article cannot be considered either comprehensive ("it neglects no major facts or details") or well-researched ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the same link twice. It sounds as though the author is just winding up to give the book a good kicking when the preview stops. I must say i don't remember seeing British reviews. Johnbod (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I made a mistake with copy pasting links, but there are other reviews, such as an academic one stating "The book offers acompelling and highly readable analysis of Edward’s life and fateful decision, one that offers enlightenment and diversion to all audiences. The Wallis Simpson story is thus no longer the linchpin of a monarch’s unprecedented abdication; instead, it is but one element in a long process of cultural estrangement." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm more worried about the use of primary sources. We should not be relying so heavily on The London Gazette, contemporary newspapers, and even newsreels. Given the depth in which the subject has been covered, there is no justification for this. Equally, a significant amount of the material under "Titles, styles, honours and arms" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (who cares whether he had a medal from San Marino?) and should be removed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing; need some additional perspectives on the article's status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 164 footnotes including many sources from the 21st century. It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm afraid at this time I don't see any compelling arguments that the new source needs to be cited. If the nominator can provide evidence that leaving this source out affects the articles comprehensiveness (ie the new book contains new research) I'd reconsider. Otherwise, there are many topics where you can achieve comprehensiveness by cited selected sources. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think the absence of Powell's book is remotely fatal. I'd suggest however that the absence of material from Alan Lascelles' diaries is an issue. I appreciate that they are a primary source, but he worked for Edward for a decade, and knew him exceptionally well. Lascelles' insights into Edward's character are exceptionally revealing, and probably unique. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above & others. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The absence of a single book does prevent it from being a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (1c). Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.