Wikipedia:Featured article review/William III of England/archive2
- 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 by User:Marskell 16:57, 18 August 2008 [1].
William III of England[edit]
- previous FAR
- Main editors aware of the FAR
- WikiProjects England, Royalty, and Netherlands are notified on July 31
- WikiProjects Calvinism, Military history, and LGBT studies are notified on August 4
The article fails featured article criterion #1c.
It needs reliable source references for the information in the following sections:
Also, the following (sub)sections need additional source references:
Best regards, Ilse@ 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article just had an FAR in April. Since then, people have added more citations. I don't see why we should repeat this exercise when the FA standards haven't changed and the article has only improved. Coemgenus 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the Legacy section are additional references required? Clearing the single [citation needed] marker in the "Marriage" section should be relatively easy, either by adding one or removing the sentence. The other three sections are largely irrelevant trivia. Besides, the "popular culture" section can be verified simply by watching the films, or reading the books. DrKiernan (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several citations have already been added by User:Coemgenus after this review was started. Currently there are two more facts that need a source reference in the Legacy section. If it is simple to find source references for the facts in the Popular culture section, these references could easily be provided in this article. After going through the article again, I have added a few more "citation needed" markers. – Ilse@ 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified User:Necrothesp, who wrote the popular culture section, of the review. But he's on holiday, so may not respond swiftly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image problems:
Image:Portrait of William III, (1650-1702).jpg was deleted from commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Portrait of William III, (1650-1702).jpg for dubious licensing. It is missing author and source information. The reproduction and artist should be specified.- Image:Charles II of England.jpeg lacks a direct source, as the original link given is broken.
Image:Johan-de-witt.jpg is missing information.- Image:Louis le Grand; Harnas.jpg is missing information.
- Image:William III of England.jpg claims to be painted by Lely in the period 1680–1710. Lely died in 1680. He only painted William once in 1677.
Image:Sophia of Hanover.jpg is missing information.DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- The image of Johan de Witt can be replaced by another portrait from commons:Category:Johan de Witt. – Ilse@ 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close This is getting perilously close to the end of the review section, and I'd like to forestall this moving to FARC. I've removed the images lacking information, which leaves the citations in the popular culture section the only remaining issue. As I said before, I think that the films and books act as their own sources, so I do not feel that citations are required for that section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]