Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French monarchs

List of French monarchs

This is a great example of a list. An, as far as I can see, meets all the criteria... Sotakeit 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it interesting that Hugh Capet was king of France from 987 until 986, while John I and Louis X were both king from 1314 to 1316. Also, there are two entries for a "Philip V". Is this correct? --Carnildo 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Sotakeit 20:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If Napoleon was President of the Republic, why is he listed? I know nearly nothing about the topic, but that's seems strange, I just want to understand. Along with that, the list is very good. Afonso Silva 13:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the same person as Napolean III listed next, I would suggest combining those two entries with the presidency reduced to a footnote. Rmhermen 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - DoneSotakeit 16:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Dates are not properly linked. Rmhermen 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good list, nice references and pictures. I also like the layout. Afonso Silva 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice references ;) Renata 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~ Support This earns my support now. - The list itself is quite good. Most of this page is FL quality and I think this problem can be addressed, but it's serious: the introductory essay needs work. I'm uneasy with its tone: it comes across as breezy and hasty - "most historians..." - name one, please? There's not a line citation to be found in this essay of several paragraphs. The mention of Charlemagne carries a strong POV. This page should at least footnote that he was also the founder of the Holy Roman Empire which gives Germany a fair claim to count him as their own king - which they do - and his capital city Aachen is in their country. Where the text mentions English claims to the French throne it would be a good idea to link to the article on the subject. The introduction uses one and two line paragraphs and leaves me, even after three readings, uncertain why the treaty of Verdun was selected over other possibilities as the starting point for this list. Durova 06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's changes are a step in the right direction. Keep copyediting. Regards, Durova 02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adjustments so far are positive. I can't support it yet because the introduction still has one and two sentence paragraphs. The long lead still has only one citation. This part of the page is very much like an article and it should observe the same high standards as an FA. If Wikipedia had at "good list" designation I'd give it to this page myself, but it needs more attention to merit an FL. Please don't let this lapse: I want to support it.Durova 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list. I'm interested in monarchy etc., and this is the best list of monarchs of a perticular country I've seen. Liek the layout too, especially the picture. Jani123 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Excellent layout, but I'm not fond of the idea of having 2 columns showing their kingship dates, as the second column data is redundant to the data in the first column, one row down. Is this worth fixing? I think it is because the data looks no good when it is redundant. Possibly rename the first column Kingship began: or Emperorship began:... Comments? → J@red ^talk+ _ubx 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not entirely redundant. There are several instances where one king did not immediately follow another, or where there were two kings at the same time. --Carnildo 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]