Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status.
Colin°
Talk09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Which factual claims do you think need to be verified by inline citations? Most of the content of the article is in the tables, which are amply supported. --
ALoan(Talk)14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Almost all the FL and FA criteria are identical (as recently modified by certain
User:ALoan :-) Eight substantial paragraphs of body text, full of facts, with no inline citations would be rejected these days at FA. In fact, there are no inline citations in this article at all, which is pretty hard to justify for a FL or FA.
Colin°
Talk16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, you got me there :) But a featured list is not a featured article. The two sets of critera are deliberately quite similar, and there is some crossover in FAC and FLC reviewers and nominators, but the requirements are not and need not be identical. Yes, in an ideal world, the list would have some inline citations (someone may even demand it if it were nominated on FLC now) but the main information in this list is the list, which is quite well sourced enough for me. (This list was featured in
March 2006, by the way - FAC objections for absence of inline citations were already commonplace then.) --
ALoan(Talk)18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral; I'd like to see inline citations, or at least some indication of where to look in each source for the information found in the article, but other than that this is a fine list. --
Spangineerws(háblame)01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status. In addition, there is only one named source for the entire list/article. I find it hard to believe that all this information came from just one source.
Colin°
Talk09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status.
Colin°
Talk09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Which factual claims do you think need to be verified by inline citations? Most of the content of the article is in the tables, which are amply supported. --
ALoan(Talk)14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Almost all the FL and FA criteria are identical (as recently modified by certain
User:ALoan :-) Eight substantial paragraphs of body text, full of facts, with no inline citations would be rejected these days at FA. In fact, there are no inline citations in this article at all, which is pretty hard to justify for a FL or FA.
Colin°
Talk16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, you got me there :) But a featured list is not a featured article. The two sets of critera are deliberately quite similar, and there is some crossover in FAC and FLC reviewers and nominators, but the requirements are not and need not be identical. Yes, in an ideal world, the list would have some inline citations (someone may even demand it if it were nominated on FLC now) but the main information in this list is the list, which is quite well sourced enough for me. (This list was featured in
March 2006, by the way - FAC objections for absence of inline citations were already commonplace then.) --
ALoan(Talk)18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral; I'd like to see inline citations, or at least some indication of where to look in each source for the information found in the article, but other than that this is a fine list. --
Spangineerws(háblame)01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status. In addition, there is only one named source for the entire list/article. I find it hard to believe that all this information came from just one source.
Colin°
Talk09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply