Wikipedia:Featured article review/House of Lords/archive1

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Emsworth, UK notice board, British Government, and Politics. Sandy 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has no inline citations. Also has odd sectioning, with an "Introduction" section, and it also has obsolete image tags. Judgesurreal777 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead is insufficient and "Introduction" is a bad section header. Anyone else see the connection here? OK, now the lead is too long.  Pagra shtak  04:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Lead section is rather long, and the article lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lead is not a lead:  it's an entire article.  The article is uncited, and the prose needs work.  Example:
 * "Since then however, reform has stalled (see Lords Reform. The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80%, and fully elected)."
 * The paragraph starts off with "since then", but the "since when" isn't clear; the prose throughout has parenthetical inserts as in this example, which should be converted to prose (the one given above doesn't have a close parentheses); the "widely criticised" isn't sourced, nor is any of the detail given there, and the passage has yet another parenthetical insert. This is typical of the prose, which needs a massage.  Sandy 22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Needs copy-editing. Here are examples.
 * "The Parliament also includes the Sovereign and the House of Commons (which is the lower house of Parliament)." (Second sentence.) Shouldn't that be "comprises", or are you keeping something from us? And can't the opening one-sentence para be merged?
 * Fourth para: can we have the years, rather than just the vague "in recent times"?
 * "There have been other clergymen appointed,..."—Should that be "Other clergymen have been appointed,..."? Same for the subsequent sentence, which is a twisting myre: "There have been no Roman Catholic clergymen appointed, though it was rumoured that Cardinal Basil Hume was offered a peerage, but refused, and accepted instead the Order of Merit, personal appointment of the Queen, shortly before his death."

Lots of work required. Tony 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), image tags (3), and sectioning (2). Marskell 08:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahem, and 1a. Tony 13:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone mentioned here that "inline cite requirement is not applied to FAs that passed before that requirement took hold." -- Stbalbach 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They may have mentioned it, but regardless, all FAs are held to the same standards. Tony 07:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody is working on this article, so let's defeature it as the month window has run out. LuciferMorgan 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove None of the concerns were addressed. Joelito (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)