Wikipedia:Featured article review/Treaty of Devol/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:42, 30 September 2007.

Treaty of Devol

Review commentary

Alerted main contributor (Adam Bishop) and four WikiProjects listed on article talk page.

Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites. ~~--RelHistBuff 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not sure if the above nomination was ever progressed. Renominating for the same reason. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did nominate the article, but at the time there was an overload of articles in the FAR process so I withdrew it temporarily. Since it has been renominated, I will give more details about the 1c criterion problem. The prose contain certain passive constructions such as

It was generally understood
It was argued that
It is notable

These should reworded and/or cited. Also the quote should have a cite. There are clearly elements of a historian's analysis such as

The Crusaders seem to have felt
perhaps, he felt he had lost
It may have been written
The treaty appears to be
the proceedings must have been
he may have also wanted

These should be cited to give credit to the historian that did the analysis. Otherwise it looks like original research. --RelHistBuff 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the notifications listed at the top old or new; has anyone notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew it before I notified anyone so I assume that OpenToppedBus made the notifications. --RelHistBuff 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me - notified yesterday. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from citations, the article needs a significant ce, and a more substantial lead. But there is work going on. Ceoil 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the good work! Marskell 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We try!--Yannismarou 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good save! It’s a completely different article now. I see some minor issues, but not enough to defeature. --RelHistBuff 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if MOS is followed WRT end-periods of non-sentence captions, and en dashes for page ranges. Tony (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.