Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elias Ashmole/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 18:25, 13 March 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified User:PRiis‎, WikiProject Biography/Science and academia‎, WikiProject Astrology‎, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

I stumbled across this article by clicking on a random FA from the main list. The article does not appear to meet the criteria of 1c and 2c concerning sourcing. There are no inline citations present throughout the article, although there is a list of references. The list does not document what facts, quotes, or other information it covers. The article does a good job concerning using free images, but there are also various MOS issues present in the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Major problems here. 1b primiraly, and also there was a glaring and deliberate falsehood in the lead. . Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate; but any article can be attacked by cranks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Nehrams's statement, The list does not document what facts, quotes, or other information it covers. That is simply false; it begins:
 * Both Garnett's 1891 entry in the DNB and Michael Hunter's 2004 entry in the ODNB agree on the facts of Ashmole's life. Hunter's is, however, more detailed and makes use of a wider range of sources and benefits from more current scholarship. Beresiner's article has additional details on Ashmole's connection with early Freemasonry.The most recent intellectual biography of Elias Ashmole is Vittoria Feola's doctoral thesis, "Elias Ashmole and the Uses of Antiquity", University of Cambridge, 2005.
 * Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the list has the initial paragraph mentioning that the two sources cover information in the article, it does not say specifically, along with the other sources, what they cover. The article does utilize the Harvard referencing, but more inline citations should be present throughout the article. The article would further benefit from either the Harvard references or if desired, using the citation templates, specifying what information comes from which source, page number, author, publish date, etc. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I plan on reading some material on Ashmole over the weekend, and will hopefully be able to make some edits next week to expand it further and introduce additional inline references. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c). Marskell (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it's OK to change parenthetic citations to footnotes? Gimmetrow 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added extra material, sources and notes, and in the process converted the Harvard references to footnotes. The remaining references in parentheses are in the footnotes, where I think they are appropriate. DrKiernan (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nice work! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.