Wikipedia:Featured article review/Order of the Bath/archive1

Order of the Bath

Article is still a featured article

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. Sandy 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No inline citations and images have obsolete licencing tags. Jay32183 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2. c. which asks for inline citations, references and so on isn't met by this article. This needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the lack of citations myself when I was fixing up some of the Order of the Bath categories in the last week or two. I'll try and deal with this, although it might take me a week or two to get to the library to check sources Dr pda 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, I'd rather see this brought up to par than demoted. Will you also be fixing the image problems? The public domain images only need their tags updated, but one image is marked "non-commercial only", so that must be dealt with. Jay32183 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll do that as well. I think I've found a replacement for the non-commercial only image. Dr pda 19:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and added inline cites to the whole article, and put {{fact}} tags in the places I need to double check, or find a reference. I've also significantly expanded the history section, but the text will need polishing in places, and may need rearranging. I'll come back to this article at the weekend, when I can get to the library to check references. I'll try and do the images then too. Feel free to copyedit in the meantime :) --Dr pda 00:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? At two weeks, excellent progress on citations by Dr pda, but still not fully cited: move to FARC just to keep things moving? Sandy 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say that the nomination can last more than two weeks if changes are ongoing; since the only issues raised so far are inline citations and image tags, both of which I hope to deal with this weekend, I suggest leaving it at FAR until then. Dr pda 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now fully cited (92 cites not counting duplicates!). I've also replaced the images whose licensing was in question and added other images relevant to the article. Thus all (both) the issues raised have been addressed. As an added bonus a substantial amount of information has been added to the article improving its comprehensiveness. A fresh pair of eyes to look over the prose would be welcome. Hopefully we can close the FAR without needing to take it to FARC. Dr pda 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely satisfied on the images. The only comment on the referencing would be that the web site references aren't using the cite web template, but that should be an easy fix compared to all the other work you've done. Jay32183 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were only three of them, so I went ahead and did it myself. So I am now satisfied with the citations and references. I would double check the prose but I am only familiar with AmE, which this article is not supposed to be written in. But I'm pretty sure the article no longer fails the Feature Article criteria. Jay32183 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions (I didn't have time to peruse the entire article): why are Categories listed in See also? I've never seen that before: can't they just be changed to Categories, at the bottom of the page as usual? Also, can you make separate sections for Notes and References? It took me a while to find the references for your footnotes (I don't believe WP:GTL requires this, but it does make them easier to find). Also, where would a person who doesn't know the subject area (like myself) locate the Statutes? Sandy 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notes and references are now separate sections. The categories are in See Also because they are the equivalent of "List of people who have been made Knight Grand Cross" etc. I've added a sentence to the start of this section to make it clearer. (And before someone asks, the List of Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath is a special case, presumably because the number of people ever appointed as such (between 1725 and 1815) was relatively small, and will never change). The copies of the Statutes I used were in the library, however this was the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, which I rather imagine is a special case. I don't know how easy it is to find them otherwise, although I notice the article on de quotes them as a reference, and a quick search shows the Library of Congress has a copy from 1744. They were printed/bound as regular books, and I guess a copy is given to new members, so copies may have been donated to libraries on their decease (from the accession dates I think this is where some of the Bodleian copies come from). If I recall correctly the statutes of the time were reprinted in Nicolas's book. Also, the copy of Anstis's Observations I used included the 1725 statutes. Dr pda 14:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Assuming these few formatting concerns from Sandy can be addressed, I see no reason not to close this successfully, without the FARC period. Marskell 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]