Wikipedia:Featured article review/Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/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 removed by User:Marskell 13:34, 18 July 2008.

Review commentary
Have notified User:Lord Emsworth the main editor and nominator and wp:Version 0.5. Notifications completed.


 * 1(c) Needs more in-line citations for quotations and opinions. Tom (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

9 references total in a 47 kb article. Definitely doesn't fill the criteria. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would lose that graph in the middle of the article. Buc (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Terrible article. Only 10 refs, poor prose, poor layout and a short lead (see WP:LEAD). The graph in the middle is cramped and difficult to read. A large amount of work is required to bring this up to 2008 FA standards. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The article fails WP:FACR:
 * 1(a) It has too many grammatical errors and uses poor style. The second sentence is what made me stop reading further.  It has 60 words, and should be broken up into around 3 sentences.  Stylistic choices are poor as well--the frequent use of "he or she" and the alternate "she or he" drives me nuts. (I know that Wikipedia supports gender-neutral language, but cases like this are absurd.) The article should be copy-edited.


 * 1(c) It lacks adequate citation references (There are 10 references, and only two of them are even close to scholarly. Most are news articles or youtube videos.) Find many additional references, including scholarly and primary sources.


 * 2(a) It has a verbose and poor lead

This article needs a lot of work on both language and verifiable content. Lwnf360 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pity if this informative article can't be saved. But yes, it needs renovation. Oh, the lack of citations! The prose is mostly OK, but needs an audit (choppiness of paragraphing in a few places reveals WP's former stylistic bete noir). TONY   (talk)  03:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove Verifiability, prose. As an example of both: "There are numerous categorical testimonies deep into the 19th century decrying the notion of a First or Prime Minister, credibly declaring the concept as alien to the Constitution, and the term actually emerges as a creature of historians, not lawyers or Parliament — indeed the contrary is best documented." Also, this can serve as an example of lack of comprehensiveness and neutrality: the Prime Minister's opponents may have decried the notion of a Prime Minister but what did the Prime Ministers say? DrKay (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Far from featured even with the old standards. Nobody seems to work on it.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Lacks sufficient references and citations as required by today's criteria. --maclean 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.