Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Anne Boleyn
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result is not approved for A-class
Anne Boleyn[edit]
Current GA. Appears to surpass GA-criteria on first sight. Errabee 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure of the precise criteria for A-Class vs. GA-Class, but I would think this article might need more of the following before being promoted so closely to FA status:
- Full bibliographic information and proper bibliographic format including ISBN numbers for each of the references listed (Right now there are only titles, authors, and publication years; these are not done in MLA or Chicago format. It would help greatly to have them at least listed alphabetically beginning with the author's last name so that a reader can easily find full source information to accompany the citations listed above the references section. At the moment, the references are listed, unalphabetically, by title, and, as mentioned above, have incomplete bibliographical information and non-standard format.)
- Many more citations. (There are many facts, particularly in the later sections of the article, that are uncited, and it seems to me they should be, particularly those that might be considered debatable or possibly POV.)
- Citations that can be matched easily to a properly listed reference: Each citation should, I would think, have an accompanying reference so that a reader can find the source for the information involved, if need be. (I spotted no references listed for the citations attributed Elton, Strickland, or Scarisbrick; and those for Ives provide a page number, but do not indicate which of the two Ives books listed as references are being cited.)
- Perhaps the info box can be "fleshed out" a bit by adding siblings together with birth/death years for the other individuals included.
The article is very well-written and is divided appropriately into pertinent sections. While I don't know as much as I'd like about Anne Boleyn, it seems this article hits on all significant points and presents full, solid information about this important figure. The only significant problems I see, keeping in mind that I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the content, are those described above, which, while arguably technical, are substantial, particularly if there's any concern that some of the information involved may be POV. Jancarhart 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, I am going to have to oppose this comprehensive, well-written and enjoyable article for one major reason. It does not have enough inline citations. Many sections and subsections have either no citations or only one. Controversial statements and theories attributed to historians need to be cited. I have a feeling that the editor(s) who worked on this article started the process of citation but then stopped because the citations are heavily weighted to the beginning of the article. Like Jancarhart, I would also like to see the bibliography properly formatted. It is extremely difficult to read as it is now stands and does not contain enough information on each book. Awadewit 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.