Wikipedia:Featured article review/Victoria of the United Kingdom/archive1

Victoria of the United Kingdom

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/to do, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty, and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Sandy 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this featured article earlier today. What's right at the top? A template. I looked through the article, and, lo and behold, no inline citations. In addition, the article is full of red links, the references section has no ISBN numbers (they should be available for most of the books listed), random people have their names bolded, among other issues. While this may have been FA material two years ago, it isn't today. ♠ SG →Talk 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears the wrong template was added. If the justification for adding a template is "needs inline citations" then the correct template is . The template added is to be used (as the template says) if you find inaccuracies. Since nobody challenged the accuracy of the article I removed the template. If you think the article can be "complemented where appropriate by inline citations" (as WP:FA? says) then please add the  tags where appropriate and I will see if I can fill them in. Maintain 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC Two weeks, the diff shows some minor changes and wikilinking, but no inline citations and no substantial changes. Sandy 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of inline citations (1c) and MOS issues (2). Diff. Marskell 09:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. No inline citations. Sections like "Trivia" and "Cultural References" with scattered information are not recommended for FA. They need either rewriting or merger.--Yannismarou 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. No inline citations, a violation of criterion 1. c. As already stated by other Wikipedians, the "Trivia" and "Cultural References" sections are poor. All the info within the trivia section needs to be incorporated elsewhere if important, or otherwise removed so that the article ends up without a trivia section. The "Cultural References" section needs a major rewrite to veer away from the frankly lazy bullet style format, and be written in proper paragraphs which all intertwine together. LuciferMorgan 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. No inline citations, trivia section. Sandy 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)