| Revision as of 20:13, 9 October 2008 editCeoil (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers171,987 edits →Discussion: clf← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:35, 9 October 2008 edit undoDisinfoboxman (talk | contribs)102 edits →Discussion: fuckwitsNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| * '''Keep''': I can't see that either of the claims made above are accurate. Firstly, criterion 1c indicates that inline citations are only necessary "]"; following that link reveals that the requirement applies to "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; I can see nothing in the article that is controversial in the slightest. No indication is given above as to which "statement claimed" is meant. The criteria 2c turns on the evaluation of appropriateness in 1c, which I do not believe has been established. The references offer both primary and secondary sources and the article is well-written, detailed and scholarly. ] (]) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | * '''Keep''': I can't see that either of the claims made above are accurate. Firstly, criterion 1c indicates that inline citations are only necessary "]"; following that link reveals that the requirement applies to "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; I can see nothing in the article that is controversial in the slightest. No indication is given above as to which "statement claimed" is meant. The criteria 2c turns on the evaluation of appropriateness in 1c, which I do not believe has been established. The references offer both primary and secondary sources and the article is well-written, detailed and scholarly. ] (]) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' The topic is broad enough that it could easily be cited by a non-expert (as apposed to ], which required very specific knowledge). A couple of editors could bring this to the current standard in a week or two, if anybody is interested in helping rather than shooting. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' The topic is broad enough that it could easily be cited by a non-expert (as apposed to ], which required very specific knowledge). A couple of editors could bring this to the current standard in a week or two, if anybody is interested in helping rather than shooting. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. No infobox. Also various incorrect commas, and missing dashes. <!--as if footnotes made any measurable difference to the quality of an article--> -- ] (]) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:35, 9 October 2008
Augustan drama
Users notified: User talk:Geogre, User talk:NicholasTurnbull; also notified WikiProject Theatre.
Proposal
This article fails 1c and 2c of Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria
- Criteria 1c: Although there is a list of References at the bottom of the article, they are not specific to statement claimed.
- Criteria 2c: Although there are a couple of inline citations (e.g. (IV 55–60), (Pasquin IV i.)), it fails the specific 2c criteria:
(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
—Mattisse (Talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- Keep: I can't see that either of the claims made above are accurate. Firstly, criterion 1c indicates that inline citations are only necessary "where appropriate"; following that link reveals that the requirement applies to "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; I can see nothing in the article that is controversial in the slightest. No indication is given above as to which "statement claimed" is meant. The criteria 2c turns on the evaluation of appropriateness in 1c, which I do not believe has been established. The references offer both primary and secondary sources and the article is well-written, detailed and scholarly. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The topic is broad enough that it could easily be cited by a non-expert (as apposed to A Tale of a Tub, which required very specific knowledge). A couple of editors could bring this to the current standard in a week or two, if anybody is interested in helping rather than shooting. Ceoil 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No infobox. Also various incorrect commas, and missing dashes. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)