Wikipedia:Featured article review/Peerage/archive1

Article is no longer a featured article.

Can you explain why it no longer meets FA crteria, it's rather ok for one of the older FAs out there. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two immediately stand out:

So do I. In addition, it needs a good copy-edit (2a). Here are examples, taken at random:

- "A hereditary peer is a peer whose dignity may"—repetition.
- "Writs of summons summon an individual to Parliament, in the old feudal tradition, and merely imply the existence or creation of an hereditary peerage dignity, which is automatically inherited, presumably according to the traditional mediæval rules (male-preference primogeniture, similar to the succession of British crown)." Unwieldy snake, with "summons summon" repetition.
- "a peerage dignity continues to exist"—Remove last two words as redundant.
- "In former times, peerage dignities were often forfeit by Acts of Parliament,"—Vague chronological reference. Same here: "Hereditary peers were all once entitled to sit in the House of Lords,"—Once?

Main FA criteria concerns are whether it represents our best work (1) and citations (2c). Marskell 10:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - there has been only one edit since the article was nominated for FAR: no movement, no improvement, not FA quality. Sandy 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per Sandy. Tony 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Systemic bias on the United Kingdom. What about other monarchies? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]