Wikipedia:Featured article review/William IV of the United Kingdom/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 09:48, 16 April 2008.

William IV of the United Kingdom[edit]

Notified User:Wehwalt, User:Lord Emsworth, User:DBD, User:DrKiernan, Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty

Concerned re 1(c): only nine inline cites versus 28kB of prose. Promoted in 2004, no reviews since then. Chwech 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the quotes, what is challenged or likely to be challenged? Please recall that citing the quotes will, if done responsibly, cite the stories in which they sit. Without that, this is not actionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay:

- The fact that he was not expected to inherit the Crown
  - Obvious. He had two elder brothers, and the oldest had offspring. Princess Charlotte is common knowledge and should also be be sourced on her own article; the fact that the British monarchy lets girls inherit is known even to lay readers. (If you wish to bring this up again in King Charles III's reign, feel free, if silly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot to kidnap him approved by George Washington, and quote regarding
- Nelson's quote
- George III's quote (I've just seen your comment above regarding the quotes—I'm not sure what you mean. How does is this not actionable because it's only quotes that are not cited? I agree with your point; citing the quotes would fill in a lot of of the gaps.)
- "He was anxious to serve his country, but was not put in command of a ship, apparently due to a speech he gave in the House of Lords opposing the war." regarding the war with France
  - That's a real (although small) problem; so are the quotes, as noted below.
- "Eventually, a princess was found who was amicable, home-loving, and loved children." There is a ref for the sentence after this, I'm not sure if it covers this—if it does this isn't a problem, and I'll strike
- The legend about wanting to sleep with a Queen and his approachable, down-to-earth nature and popularity as King

I'll find more later, when I have more time. Chwech 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Make that "the rest of this is not actionable". The quotes do need to be sourced, which should source most of the rest of this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, thanks for explaining. As I said, I agree with your point, but I can see a few bits and pieces elsewhere that could use sourcing (the list of descendents in the "Later life" section, for example). Chwech 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have access to a copy of Ziegler, which may assist in citing the article, but it is currently unavailable. I have requested it. DrKiernan (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it all looks much better now; I'm really impressed with the work done. Nice job. Chwech 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close It seems OK to me too, now. The only parts where sources are not provided are the baptismal place, godparents, "popular culture", and "arms" sections. The latter two probably don't require them as the arms are well-known and the films and novels in the pop culture bit serve as their own sources. The first two are too trivial to demote over, or to remove them, although it would be nice to have sources there. DrKiernan (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.