Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Napoleon I of France/1

Napoleon I of France[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep per consensus below. No specific failure to meet the criteria has been articulated. Geometry guy 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the entire Talk page, it seems to me that the invented information about Napoleon's death really needs to be removed from the article. His last words are listed wrongly, following a source that is known to have made them up. His real last words are recounted in a scholarly fashion on the Talk page, with citations that could be followed up. There is also a great deal more specific information about his death on the talk page, which contradicts the version in the article.

Is there a reason why his death comes before his marriages? That seems rather odd, in a biographical article. The marriage section seems to have been written earlier and in a different style than the entire rest of the article, with few citations and what appears to be conjecture or opinion. The rest of the article is good, but to have the last section(s) decay into what they are now doesn't seem to be GA level, to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2009

What do you think the invented information is? What does your source say his last words were and how is that source more reliable than the current source? What source do you think has made things up and what is your reliable source to show that the other source has made things up? When you say decay which version do you think was better? Tom B (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep meets GA criterion in my opinion, Tom B (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely meets all the GA criteria. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain as GA. I was happy with the article's treatment of Naopleon's death when I originally reviewed it for GA, and the author has done an excellent job of keeping it balanced and representative while keeping the mainstream views to the fore. This article attracts significant WP:FRINGE attention, and talkpages are not always a reliable guide to the accuracy and veifibility of article content. Further improvements could be made, but I still believe the article comes well within the tolerances of the GA criteria. EyeSerene^talk 13:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]