They've all been FA promoted. Two problems though: the lead article isn't very well developed, and some of them were promoted at a time when the criteria were less stringent, and risk being demoted (James II already has been).
Lampman21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Because back in the day (2003-early 2004) a bunch of articles were passed as FAs under a set of requirements that were radically easier to meet than todays, and the FAR process is a lot slower than GAR, besides not allowing the quick-failing of FAs. It's not that the FA project needs to get it's act together (AFAIK there is no such thing) but that more people need to contribute to FAR so that the backlog can be gotten through. --
PresN16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The FA review/candidate sections don't need to get their acts together; the people whole pile on nominations and overwhelm us need to. If we weren't so swarmed with review and candidate nominations, we'd probably be able to salvage more than we do/prevent poor articles from promoting. And like PresN said, a lot of these articles were promoted in the "brillant prose" era of 2003-2004. — Deckiller18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the main article,
House of Stuart doesn't even have a references section. It lacks the section entirely. One could have at least cheated, thrown one in there, and put a source or two. --Phoenix (
talk)
03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
They've all been FA promoted. Two problems though: the lead article isn't very well developed, and some of them were promoted at a time when the criteria were less stringent, and risk being demoted (James II already has been).
Lampman21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Because back in the day (2003-early 2004) a bunch of articles were passed as FAs under a set of requirements that were radically easier to meet than todays, and the FAR process is a lot slower than GAR, besides not allowing the quick-failing of FAs. It's not that the FA project needs to get it's act together (AFAIK there is no such thing) but that more people need to contribute to FAR so that the backlog can be gotten through. --
PresN16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The FA review/candidate sections don't need to get their acts together; the people whole pile on nominations and overwhelm us need to. If we weren't so swarmed with review and candidate nominations, we'd probably be able to salvage more than we do/prevent poor articles from promoting. And like PresN said, a lot of these articles were promoted in the "brillant prose" era of 2003-2004. — Deckiller18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the main article,
House of Stuart doesn't even have a references section. It lacks the section entirely. One could have at least cheated, thrown one in there, and put a source or two. --Phoenix (
talk)
03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply