| Revision as of 14:04, 7 December 2007 editMeegsC (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers36,762 editsm →1755 Lisbon earthquake: remove duplicate word← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:38, 7 December 2007 edit undoGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →1755 Lisbon earthquakeNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| *Incorrect. It has inline references aplenty, as well as references. It does not have ''footnotes,'' and these are not the same things. ] (]) 11:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | *Incorrect. It has inline references aplenty, as well as references. It does not have ''footnotes,'' and these are not the same things. ] (]) 11:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Remove''', ''unless citations added''. I would agree it has plenty of references—in the "References" section. I would not, however, agree that it has sufficient in-line references. There are a very few page numbers, which can be found immediately after direct quotes. However, most of the paragraphs throughout most of the article have no reference citations at all. Unless these are added, the FA star should be removed. The article is well-written overall, and someone with access to the listed references could surely cite the facts accordingly and save it from that fate! ] | ] 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | :'''Remove''', ''unless citations added''. I would agree it has plenty of references—in the "References" section. I would not, however, agree that it has sufficient in-line references. There are a very few page numbers, which can be found immediately after direct quotes. However, most of the paragraphs throughout most of the article have no reference citations at all. Unless these are added, the FA star should be removed. The article is well-written overall, and someone with access to the listed references could surely cite the facts accordingly and save it from that fate! ] | ] 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Marvellous page'''. Nothing wrong with it at all. ] (]) 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:38, 7 December 2007
1755 Lisbon earthquake
2(c): no in-line references at all.--Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. It has inline references aplenty, as well as references. It does not have footnotes, and these are not the same things. Geogre (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remove, unless citations added. I would agree it has plenty of references—in the "References" section. I would not, however, agree that it has sufficient in-line references. There are a very few page numbers, which can be found immediately after direct quotes. However, most of the paragraphs throughout most of the article have no reference citations at all. Unless these are added, the FA star should be removed. The article is well-written overall, and someone with access to the listed references could surely cite the facts accordingly and save it from that fate! MeegsC | Talk 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Marvellous page. Nothing wrong with it at all. Giano (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)