Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Comments;

• Well written; although, in my opinion, some of the paragraphs are just sentences and could probably be expanded, I'm under the impression that this is not a major issue for Good Articles, nor is it grounds for failing. The section relevant to coronation around the world is probably where the lack of information is most evident, but understandably it might make the article longer than it could be. I would suggest, perhaps, starting a new article for that part, and linking to it from this article and just adding a more general review. But, this is something that could be done after the article has achieved Good Article status, I think.
• Factually accurate; there are some paragraphs on coronations in different countries missing references, but nothing major. The article, in general, is well sourced.
• Broad in coverage; this article easily passes this parameter.
• Neutral; not an issue!
• Stability and illustration; passes on both.

Like I inferred in the first comment; I'd suggest some sort of expansion, although I think the article meets good article standards. As a result, I'm passing the article. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]