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 removed 07:54, 1 December 2007.

---

British House of Commons[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Wikiproject England informed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've never taken much to do with FA, so this is probably all wrong, so sorry about that. But HTF did this become a FA? Although it is accurate, it has virtually no intext referencing. The prose is repetitive, clunking, full of over-detailed trivia and far too long, and that's even after I gave it a rough copy edit. It is also full of non-free images. What's more, I checked back to find out that all these problems existed at the time of its original promotion in 2006. It reads like an article designed by a camel - and yet it is almost a great article.--Doc^g 11:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, it is beyond me. Though standards were lower back then. I mean it is great except for flaws such as the the lack of any inline citation! (bar one - and you can't tell me the media trivia and the 2005 election results are covered by the books at the bottom). And areas do need updating/expanding/reorganising - for example the history section is all over the place and only goes up to 1949. Unless someone gets onto these problems ASAP it should be demoted and made to go through the process again, that should bring out all the problems that have developed. - J Logan ^t: 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects, and post a note back here of notifications (see other FARs). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It became an FA because in 2004 (then, not 2006, was the promotion date) intext referencing was not discussed at FAC. It's what we call an "Emsworth classic". Marskell 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I don't usually take to do with FAs. It was, however, on the mainpage as featured article on 25 September 2006. So it was featured with several 'non-fee' images, and defective citations. Didn't anyone check before actually 'featuring' it?--Doc^g 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other articles of the much-missed editor, Emsworth, it is a summary, correct and complete as far as I can judge, of four standard sources. It is in fact one of our best articles; the standards for verifiability were designed, since Emsworth's departure, to constrain editors with less understanding, less neutrality, and fewer scruples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article is accurate and comprehensive - if over detailed at places. However, information was repeated and the prose poor at times. I cleaned some of it - but a rewording by a better writer would be beneficial. It isn't just about referencing. There are some FA writers who have a real journalists touch with language - this article could use one of them.--Doc^g 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, it was actually raised to featured status in 2004.

Main problem with the lack of citation is changes since then, they can't be attiributed to those books and Emsworth's work. Perhaps if it is reverted to its last status by him, and have the book citations tagging each paragraph. Then it could go through a copyedit and new information inserted with new citations. - J Logan ^t: 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this diff. Aside from the claim about Parliament always being summoned by the monarch, which could probably use fudging to cover 1661, I see no major differences of substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intensely dislike the idea of undoing two year's work. Many of the changes since may have been improvements corrections, or updating information. To go back isn't an option. The issue isn't one user's work, but to properly reference the facts that we have, as we can. In any case, the prose style and the images were more my concern than the citations.--Doc^g 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to undo; most of those two years' work are minor changes, with (as above) one exception. Would you tag or list the prose you think needs editing? The article talk page might be a better place for a list than here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tightened the lead; but I don't see any other prose crying out for revision. Please explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is at least one non-free image without rationale. Pagrashtak 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which one? The color image at the top has a rationale and the others date from 1834 or before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:House of Commons logo.PNG has no rationale. Pagrashtak 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An interesting point: it's a heraldic badge, and is protected by the (UK) legislation on heraldry, not trademark or copyright at all. (Since it has existed since the fourteenth century, I doubt it is eligible for copyright in the first place.) Punch routinely used it to illustrate their column on the House. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this similar to a coat of arms situation, where the creator can release his interpretation under a free license then? Pagrashtak 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It really ought to be, they're both heraldic symbols; but I am not a lawyer. I would, however, be surprised to find it protected under US or Florida law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a fair-use notice (with some hesitation, since I'm not the uploader); if it is ultimately unnecessary, it does no harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • From what you've said, isn't this image replaceable, and thus fails fair use? Pagrashtak 06:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Probably not: this image is already reversed-color from the website credited. If the charge can be used freely, then this qualifies, and the notice is unnecessary; if this one can't, then any replacement is under the same restrictions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria is referencing (1c). -- Marskell (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. Referencing is not Doc's actual suggestion; his concern was the prose, which has improved. I stand with his summary of "accurate and comprehensive"; in addition, it is responsibly derived from clearly indicated reliable sources, including the Brittanica article scanned here. I shall write Dr Kiernan, and see if he cares to do something; but I would rather have WP represented by this article, as it stands, than by many of the current candidates, including some that will be promoted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc's first criteria concern was "Although it is accurate, it has virtually no intext referencing." I should have added prose and images. Clearly this is nowhere near current referencing standards and we do not have an initial author to vouch for it. Marskell (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Remove. Tony (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove The article is not comprehensive, for example there's no mention of the Acts of Union. I also have concerns over criteria 1a and 4, for example the article ranges from the important to the trivial in almost the same breath. I would prefer to see inline citations; it is easier to judge the reliability of statements that way and saves a lot of fact-checking when reading an article. I got rather tired with Privilege of Peerage and I'm afraid I don't have the stomach just now to tackle this article in a serious way. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per Marskell.- J Logan ^t: 18:11, 29 November 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.