Wikipedia:Featured article review/Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson/archive1

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Johnleemk, Bio, Peerage, UK notice board, MilHist, and Ships. Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The number one issue: no citations at all, only a list of references at the bottom. Because of this it also contains a lot of weasel words, like "Some have speculated" and other places. The prose is hardly brillant: "Nelson retained consciousness for four hours, but died soon after the battle ended with a British victory.(See Nelson's last words.)" (bolding mine). So FA 1a and 1c are the problems here. Hbdragon88 03:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Two major problems:
 * 1) no citations, or virtually none, on a subject who has been written about as much as any figure from that era!
 * 2) a huge number of weasel words, very subjective. That is exactly and precisely why we use citing and source - quote directly and avoid this kind of problem!   This has potential to be a very good article, if you cite it, and eliminate the weasel words.  old windy bear 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Titles of Nobility box at the end is a bit confusing (at least to this Yank). Two "Baron Nelson", both linked to Earl Nelson, with no additional dab info? Text mentions a 1798 Barony, but both Baronies in the box are dated 1801. Text mentions the two different Baronies, but not the box or Earl Nelson. --J Clear 22:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Baronies already corrected and I've sorted the Earldom and explained the succession Alci12 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you do something about the box at the end of the article? That was the bit that I found least self explainitory.  Perhaps adding the appropriate "of xxxx" under the two Baron Nelson entries.--J Clear 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious how that could be done briefly. The two as mentioned in the article are Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk (1798) and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Hillborough in the County of Norfolk (1801) I will see what people can come up with though. Alci12 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At least the dates in the box seem sorted now. Perhaps adding " ...of Burnham Thorpe... " and " ...of Hillborough... " to titles.  Just enough to dab, but not the full title which I'm assuming distorts the box. --J Clear 01:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With the stipulation that whatever gets done here shouldn't become a precedent, perhaps "first creation" and "second creation" or "remainder to heirs-male" and "special remainder" would be more useful than territorial designations to readers less familiar with the intricacies of the peerage? Choess 16:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The precedent was exactly why I was a touch wary of making an exception to the normal format. First and second creation might be best, remainder to heirs male / special remainder might still be confusing to general readers? JC may have a view here Alci12 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you meant this JC, but I'd just like the Titles of Nobility box to offer the most succinct explaination of why "Baron Nelson" is listed twice with overlapping dates. As to precedent, I'd think you're only setting a precedent where there is a clear (pardon the pun) need for disambiguation.  I went to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to see what another example would look like.  Is there some reason that the heading on nav box there is the linked Peerage of the United Kingdom and Nelson's uses an unlinked "Titles of Nobility"? --J Clear 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did. The DofW is correct as I understand it, the Titles of Nobility header was designed to deal with circumstances where there are multiple titles from several difference peerages and it created a mess/made the boxes too large to have a headers for each type. However, it might offer the neatest solution here as the first barony was in the Peerage of Great Britain and the Viscountcy/second Barony was in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Amended this way it would look like Francis_Aungier_Pakenham%2C_7th_Earl_of_Longford  If course you would still have two baronies of Nelson so you might still want the 'second creation' infra Alci12 09:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have thought about the problem with the different Peerages (and the additional headers) and have created this User:Phoe/sandbox. The only condition is to divide the peerage succession boxes from the others. Greetings Phoe 10:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The infomation is clearer although the box formatting has suffered. Acceptable trade off, IMHO. --J Clear 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out to my co-editors over in Ships that the Nelson article has three redlinks to ships. Martocticvs has stepped up to turn them blue in the next few weeks.--J Clear 01:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that it needs internal citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are weasel words and prose in general (1a), and lack of citations (1c). Marskell 10:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist still no citations. Wouldn't pass a GA now, much less an FA. Hbdragon88 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove No inline citations, weasle words. Sandy (Talk) 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove as per above. --RelHistBuff 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. Per above.--Yannismarou 14:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, no inline citations.--Aldux 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)