| Revision as of 00:58, 16 March 2009 editDownstage right (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users807 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:58, 16 March 2009 edit undoDownstage right (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users807 edits →Restoration comedyNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ::If is "probably fine", then I suggest you take yourself off and find one that is probably not! Misplaced Pages has a 10,001 and more pages that are abysmal - have you some objection to criticising them, or if this page upsets you so, getting a few books and sourcing the cites yourself? If not, assume good faith, and trust that an editor of long standing such as Bishonen may just possibly be telling the truth and using the references that she has listed. If you don't want to do the hard work yourself don't ask others too. ] (]) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | ::If is "probably fine", then I suggest you take yourself off and find one that is probably not! Misplaced Pages has a 10,001 and more pages that are abysmal - have you some objection to criticising them, or if this page upsets you so, getting a few books and sourcing the cites yourself? If not, assume good faith, and trust that an editor of long standing such as Bishonen may just possibly be telling the truth and using the references that she has listed. If you don't want to do the hard work yourself don't ask others too. ] (]) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since |
:::Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that ''people who know the subject well'' (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. ] (]) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:58, 16 March 2009
Restoration comedy
While this article's content is probably fine, it contains no inline citations, only a list of references at the end. The article was promoted to FA status in 2004, when standards on referencing were much lower, and it would not pass muster today. Inline citations are necessary because the reader cannot be sure that all the information in the article really is supported by the books listed at the end. The article should not remain an FA unless this problem is rectified by knowledgeable editors.Downstage right (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- If is "probably fine", then I suggest you take yourself off and find one that is probably not! Misplaced Pages has a 10,001 and more pages that are abysmal - have you some objection to criticising them, or if this page upsets you so, getting a few books and sourcing the cites yourself? If not, assume good faith, and trust that an editor of long standing such as Bishonen may just possibly be telling the truth and using the references that she has listed. If you don't want to do the hard work yourself don't ask others too. Giano (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that people who know the subject well (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. Downstage right (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)