-
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
-
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Former monarchies" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment. At risk of starting a flamewar, there seems to be a strong British Commonwealth WP:POV to the structure of this article. There's a different coloring between the British vs. the Danish / Dutch monarchies on the map, and it sets aside the British areas as distinct from the others in the sections, while flaunting a distinction without a difference. The distinction between Canada claiming it has an independent monarchy that in an amazing coincidence happens to be the same as the British one vs. Greenland just straightforwardly acknowledging that yes, the Danish monarch is the monarch... come on. It seems to imply that Greenland isn't sovereign either, which seems designed to start a fight? The article is trying to send a message that somehow the British monarchy areas are "more independent" than the case of the Danish & Dutch monarchy regions which are merely "dependent" areas. Yes, I know that strictly speaking, this is officially true, but I'm sure that some sort of Dutch monarchy enthusiast could find some property that would have the Netherlands Antilles listed first with a positive adjective that only it complies with, and all the other monarchies listed next with a different adjective. I could see the argument about highlighting this distinction if some of these were genuinely independent monarchies in the sense of "actually having different monarchs", but that's not the case, despite the introductory paragraph assuring the reader that "each of the states is sovereign and thus has a distinct local monarchy". I think the article needs to be restructured to treat all three monarchies similarly. SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delist. Honestly I'm not 100% sure this even makes tons of sense as a unified topic, but this needs a deep rewriting. I've rearranged the sectioning and replaced the maps, which helps a little, but the article still needs major work. SnowFire (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Downgrade and Move/Spliy: Currently the article seems between B and A -- well-sourced inline, but the quality of sourcing is often mediocre and/or primary. The article should be moved/renamed to "List of monarchies in the Americas". The article topic is not "Monarchies in the Americas" because apart from the single section on Commonwealth succession laws, this is never addressed in any collective sense, as any general or comparative phenomenon (and for my (lack of) knowledge, I doubt there's any history that would give this topic such consideration -- I don't see a thesis). It's possible that a list of current monarchies should be separate from a list of former monarchies. To be clear, I despise most WP list articles, but this is just a mistitled list article -- as its scope includes all of precolumbian history across the continent (recorded and not), it is necessarily incomplete, inconsistently sourced, and of scattered scope and voice. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I'll amend: large sections of the article seem between B and A. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
