Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Royal intermarriage/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Lots of uncited statements. Also, the latter half of the article seems to be an indiscriminate list of every royal intermarriage ever without curation: I suggest that this information be spun out into its own articles. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- This article has had more than 7,000 words added to it since it was promoted to GA in June 2014 in this version. I agree with Z1720's comments, above. As well as having too many uncited statements the article now suffers from a bad mess in the References section: authors are given, seemingly at random, by forename/surname or sometimes by surname, forename; capitalisation is equally arbitrary: "anselme", "FREDERIC WAKEMAN JR" (but also "Frederic E. Wakeman"), "RETURN OF THE ROYALS"; we have "Beeche (2009)", "Beeche (2010)" and a dateless and accented "Beéche"; in the References section we have bibliographical details of more than 40 books that clearly ought to be listed in the Sources section (and some are given multiple times: the details of Wakeman's The Great Enterprise are given four times); titles are sometimes in sentence case and sometimes in title case; and we have some impenetrable citations such as "BAILII, 'Act of Settlement 1700'". The referencing plainly fails GA criteria 2a and 2b in my view. This is now such an omnium gatherum of an article that I think it also fails criterion 3b. Tim riley talk 07:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)