Comment: I find it interesting that Hugh Capet was king of France from 987 until 986, while John I and Louis X were both king from 1314 to 1316. Also, there are two entries for a "Philip V". Is this correct? --
Carnildo19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - If Napoleon was President of the Republic, why is he listed? I know nearly nothing about the topic, but that's seems strange, I just want to understand. Along with that, the list is very good.
Afonso Silva13:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
He is the same person as Napolean III listed next, I would suggest combining those two entries with the presidency reduced to a footnote.
Rmhermen15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
ObjectSupportThis earns my support now. - The list itself is quite good. Most of this page is FL quality and I think this problem can be addressed, but it's serious: the introductory essay needs work. I'm uneasy with its tone: it comes across as breezy and hasty - "most historians..." - name one, please? There's not a line citation to be found in this essay of several paragraphs. The mention of Charlemagne carries a strong POV. This page should at least footnote that he was also the founder of the Holy Roman Empire which gives Germany a fair claim to count him as their own king - which they do - and his capital city
Aachen is in their country. Where the text mentions
English claims to the French throne it would be a good idea to link to the article on the subject. The introduction uses one and two line paragraphs and leaves me, even after three readings, uncertain why the treaty of Verdun was selected over other possibilities as the starting point for this list.
Durova06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
The adjustments so far are positive. I can't support it yet because the introduction still has one and two sentence paragraphs. The long lead still has only one citation. This part of the page is very much like an article and it should observe the same high standards as an FA. If Wikipedia had at "good list" designation I'd give it to this page myself, but it needs more attention to merit an FL. Please don't let this lapse: I want to support it.
Durova17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Great list. I'm interested in monarchy etc., and this is the best list of monarchs of a perticular country I've seen. Liek the layout too, especially the picture.
Jani12312:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. Excellent layout, but I'm not fond of the idea of having 2 columns showing their kingship dates, as the second column data is redundant to the data in the first column, one row down. Is this worth fixing? I think it is because the data looks no good when it is redundant. Possibly rename the first column Kingship began: or Emperorship began:... Comments?
→J@redtalk+ubx22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
It's not entirely redundant. There are several instances where one king did not immediately follow another, or where there were two kings at the same time. --
Carnildo22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: I find it interesting that Hugh Capet was king of France from 987 until 986, while John I and Louis X were both king from 1314 to 1316. Also, there are two entries for a "Philip V". Is this correct? --
Carnildo19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - If Napoleon was President of the Republic, why is he listed? I know nearly nothing about the topic, but that's seems strange, I just want to understand. Along with that, the list is very good.
Afonso Silva13:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
He is the same person as Napolean III listed next, I would suggest combining those two entries with the presidency reduced to a footnote.
Rmhermen15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
ObjectSupportThis earns my support now. - The list itself is quite good. Most of this page is FL quality and I think this problem can be addressed, but it's serious: the introductory essay needs work. I'm uneasy with its tone: it comes across as breezy and hasty - "most historians..." - name one, please? There's not a line citation to be found in this essay of several paragraphs. The mention of Charlemagne carries a strong POV. This page should at least footnote that he was also the founder of the Holy Roman Empire which gives Germany a fair claim to count him as their own king - which they do - and his capital city
Aachen is in their country. Where the text mentions
English claims to the French throne it would be a good idea to link to the article on the subject. The introduction uses one and two line paragraphs and leaves me, even after three readings, uncertain why the treaty of Verdun was selected over other possibilities as the starting point for this list.
Durova06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
The adjustments so far are positive. I can't support it yet because the introduction still has one and two sentence paragraphs. The long lead still has only one citation. This part of the page is very much like an article and it should observe the same high standards as an FA. If Wikipedia had at "good list" designation I'd give it to this page myself, but it needs more attention to merit an FL. Please don't let this lapse: I want to support it.
Durova17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Great list. I'm interested in monarchy etc., and this is the best list of monarchs of a perticular country I've seen. Liek the layout too, especially the picture.
Jani12312:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. Excellent layout, but I'm not fond of the idea of having 2 columns showing their kingship dates, as the second column data is redundant to the data in the first column, one row down. Is this worth fixing? I think it is because the data looks no good when it is redundant. Possibly rename the first column Kingship began: or Emperorship began:... Comments?
→J@redtalk+ubx22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
It's not entirely redundant. There are several instances where one king did not immediately follow another, or where there were two kings at the same time. --
Carnildo22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply