The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 04:26, 23 August 2013 [1].
This is a former featured article which was removed a while back due to a lack of historical criticism. I've addressed this with a few new subsections in the History section. I also submitted it for a peer review and addressed those concerns as best I could. The spelling has all been checked, and the overlinking has been reduced. The number of sources has also been expanded considerably, though there are a few that do lead back to the Order's website. For just about all of these, however, there is little alternative. I don't suspect that any other reliable source is going to describe the composition of the advisory board of the Order's junior organization, for example.-- Briancua ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments
|work=
, but it should be in roman text as the |publisher=
.This source review doesn't include a spotcheck or reliability check of the sources, just source formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose, 1a and 1c. I find the writing and sourcing to be sub-par. I see that a prose overhaul was recommended at Peer Review, but it doesn't look like that was accomplished. I recommend withdrawal to get an independent copyeditor after you fix the sourcing issues. Examples:
Sorry, but issues are way too easily spotted without even getting out of the lead. Please fix the sourcing, and then get a thorough independent copyedit. -- Laser brain (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 04:26, 23 August 2013 [1].
This is a former featured article which was removed a while back due to a lack of historical criticism. I've addressed this with a few new subsections in the History section. I also submitted it for a peer review and addressed those concerns as best I could. The spelling has all been checked, and the overlinking has been reduced. The number of sources has also been expanded considerably, though there are a few that do lead back to the Order's website. For just about all of these, however, there is little alternative. I don't suspect that any other reliable source is going to describe the composition of the advisory board of the Order's junior organization, for example.-- Briancua ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments
|work=
, but it should be in roman text as the |publisher=
.This source review doesn't include a spotcheck or reliability check of the sources, just source formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose, 1a and 1c. I find the writing and sourcing to be sub-par. I see that a prose overhaul was recommended at Peer Review, but it doesn't look like that was accomplished. I recommend withdrawal to get an independent copyeditor after you fix the sourcing issues. Examples:
Sorry, but issues are way too easily spotted without even getting out of the lead. Please fix the sourcing, and then get a thorough independent copyedit. -- Laser brain (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply