Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Stuart monarchs/archive1

Stuart monarchs of Great Britain edit

Main page	Articles
House of Stuart	James I - Charles I- Charles II - James II - Mary II - William III - Anne

They've all been FA promoted. Two problems though: the lead article isn't very well developed, and some of them were promoted at a time when the criteria were less stringent, and risk being demoted (James II already has been). Lampman 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose House of Stuart has a big {{unreferenced}} tag at the top! Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least half are scarcely referenced and wouldn't survive an FAR. ShadowHalo 04:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The FA project really needs to get its act together. Why are there so many articles with undeserved featured status? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because back in the day (2003-early 2004) a bunch of articles were passed as FAs under a set of requirements that were radically easier to meet than todays, and the FAR process is a lot slower than GAR, besides not allowing the quick-failing of FAs. It's not that the FA project needs to get it's act together (AFAIK there is no such thing) but that more people need to contribute to FAR so that the backlog can be gotten through. --PresN 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The FA review/candidate sections don't need to get their acts together; the people whole pile on nominations and overwhelm us need to. If we weren't so swarmed with review and candidate nominations, we'd probably be able to salvage more than we do/prevent poor articles from promoting. And like PresN said, a lot of these articles were promoted in the "brillant prose" era of 2003-2004. — Deckill er 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh right, and Oppose, I don't need to look past the House of Stuart article to see that this topic needs a lot of work. --PresN 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per ShadowHalo Qjuad 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the main article, House of Stuart doesn't even have a references section. It lacks the section entirely. One could have at least cheated, thrown one in there, and put a source or two. --Phoenix (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]