Wikipedia:Featured article review/George I of Great Britain/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 kept 07:09, 26 August 2007.

George I of Great Britain

Review commentary

Messages left at WP British Royalty, WP Germany and WP England.

Messages left at DBD, Ian Rose and Lord Emsworth.

No inline citations. Epbr123 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun expanding the lead but I am not familiar enough to automatically be able to do the salient points. The prose isn't too bad really. What this really needs is someone to pop down the library and pick up a book to reference alot of stuff.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't really expand on the title "Archbannerbearer" nor does it provide a wikilink. This is not a common title, and needs some more context, probably at least a wikilink. There are language issues as well that need clearing up, such as repetitive word choice "Shortly after George's accession ..." stands out as one example. Also spotted at least one contradictory statement "Pursuant to the 1707 Act of Union, George became King of Great Britain..." The article earliers states that it was the 1701 Act of Succession (barring Catholics) that made him (his mother actually, he became second in line until her death shortly preceding Queen Anne) heir presumptive. The lack of inline citations is a major problem as already noted above, but there are other issues that accumulate to make this article in need of some real help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dramatic improvement, huge amount of inline references and a 3 paragraph lead. Great job! Judgesurreal777 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 09:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it. DrKiernan 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's improving, I should note, but still needs work. Also, could the section titled "Early Reign" be renamed to something more descriptive, such as "Reign as Elector of Hannover" or something, since the title does not make that distinction.... Keep working on it! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trivia section needs zapping. LuciferMorgan 12:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, nobody vote yet. DrKiernan is still working and making great progress. --mav 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm fairly happy with it now. There are just a few very minor niggles: (1) I haven't been able to confirm the title "Archbannerbearer" yet; (2) the Castle of Ahlden is also referred to as a palace and a manor house, "castle" sounds more prison-like, "palace" and "manor" sound luxurious (which of course it was compared to the vast majority of people) (picture here)—any preference?; (3) I've used one self-published web-site as a source (Francois Velde) but his essay looks well-researched; and (4) I'm not sure about the "Highnesses" in the "Titles" section but they're correct according to http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/highness.htm and http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalstyle.htm#sub_german. These are all far too minor for me to consider demotion. DrKiernan 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tweasked some prose - over the line now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's always good to see this process work as intended, rather than see an article either ignored, or to spend pages fighting with another editor over needed changes. It is nice to see this article brought up to standard, and DrKiernan and anyone else involved shoudl be commended for great work. This is back up to feature quality now easily! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good save. --mav

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.