Talk:Coronation/GA1

GA Review

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, due mainly to referencing issues, but also to other MOS and style concerns. Below is a list of some issues that I found in a check of the article:

Under-referencing

• Under-referencing. The "The ceremony" section is almost completely unreferenced, and many of the individual country sections are completely or partially unreferenced.
  • I'll see what I can find for the "ceremony" section. In regards to the individual country sections, this is because I just wasn't able to find too much specific info on their coronation rituals. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much available for some countries! But I will look around some more, and see what I might be able to find. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that the sections should be expanded (although in some instances this would be nice). What I'm saying is that the information that is there needs to be referenced.
      • I agree. In some cases (Bavaria, for instance, comes readily to mind, though there are others), there just isn't that much specific info out there on their coronation rituals (or lack thereof). But I'm going to give some more attention to this over the next several days, as it seems to be (as you indicated) the main issue preventing the article from advancing to GA. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• After re-reading and considering the contents of the "ceremony" section, I found most of it to be repetitive, and so I thought it best to delete most of it and rewrite it as a "history and development" section, with appropriate referencing. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've taken care of the referencing concerns. Take another look and see what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Web references; publisher info

• All web references must have publisher information. Also, web references need a title, they should not simply be a bare web link.
  • I'll work on the first part; I've taken care of the second part, save for ref. 34, which absolutely refuses to be reformatted, no matter what I try to do! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I've fixed ref 34 for you.
      • Thank you so much! I'll work on the publisher info part (that may take a little while!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think I've gotten publisher info on all the references now. For some reason, reference 28 refuses to "format" for me to provide a quick-link to the site given. Not sure if this is because it is a .doc site (as opposed to a .com or .net, etc.), but otherwise, please look it over and see if it meets Wikipedia standards (this is most definitely NOT my strong suit!). Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article layout

• The way that this article is laid out could use some work. My thought would be to arrange the "Coronations in the Modern Era" section by geographic area, and information on all of the countries in that area can be included in one section. If a country's section is long, it can have its own subheader, or if the section is short and there are only one or two sentences, it can be combined with other countries in sort of a "Coronations of Europe (or Asia, or Africa)" section.
  • I didn't want to completely eliminate the individual country headings, as I think even the one-sentence nations ought to be listed individually for ease of reference, but I did rearrange them by geographic area as you suggested. How does it look to you now? - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusiveness

• This works for me. My only question would be: are these all of the kingdoms that have had coronations in the modern era? If you're going to list some of them, you should list all of them.
  • All that I can find info for. I looked for Swaziland and Morocco (two modern monarchies not listed here), together with China and Italy (defunct monarchies), but wasn't able to find anything specific--but I will look some more. I think you make a good point here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have added sections on Swaziland (what little I was able to find; there wasn't much, but I'm still looking!) and the Toro Kingdom of modern Uganda; this is an ongoing effort. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have listed everything I could find. I just wasn't able to find anything on the net about Chinese coronation rituals; that really astounds me--but then again, maybe I just didn't look in the right place. I would like to go ahead and submit it for GA reconsideration; if I or someone else is able to find anything (via printed library resources, etc.), it can always be added later. Morocco, too. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image use rationales

• Check your images for use rationales. For example, the picture of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation is fair use, with no rationale for why this use constitutes fair-use. The picture of Christian VIII of Denmark's coronation is listed as an "own work" release, but it is an engraving done in the 1800's, so I highly doubt that the creator is alive and web-savvy today.
  • In terms of the Christian VIII picture, would this not qualify as a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art (and thus in public domain) per Wikipedia policy (see Charlemagne illustration at the top of this article)? Could this be fixed by simply changing the fair-use rationale on the Christian VIII picture, or is something else required? In regard to the Elizabeth II picture, I've replaced it with another image which has no fair use issues. The other images in the article all appear to be okay in this regard (please correct me if I'm wrong, though!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess this works for now. I'm not an images expert, so I'm not really up-to-date on all of the policies :)
      • Me, neither. But when I checked the Charlemange image, it appeared that the same fair-use standard used on that one would apply to the Christian VIII one, since both are reproductions of two-dimensional works of art. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

• There should be no new information (and therefore no need for references) in the lead. Instead, it should be simply a summary of the entire article.
  • Done. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Concluding comments

These are the main issues that I saw on a quick run through of the article. When these concerns have been taken care of, please re-nominate this article for GA. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've interspersed my replies above. The referencing in the article is the biggest issue that will prevent it from becoming GA. Dana boomer (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Looks like we've eliminated three out of the six issues of concern; I'll focus on getting more references over the next few days, together with publisher info for the references I have, and see if I can find some info on the missing monarchies. Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)