Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [1].

Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale edit

Nominator(s): Isaksenk (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Elizabeth Murray, Countess of Dysart and Duchess of Lauderdale. She was an active member of the Royalist cause during the English Civil War, a prominent Scottish noble and responsible for much of the 17th-century collection at Ham House today. Isaksenk (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

I enjoyed this article. A few minor comments:

  • Early life
  • "Murray was the eldest of the four daughters of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart, a close friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I; and his wife Catherine Bruce" – the semicolon mucks up the syntax. You might consider using parenthetic dashes to make your point clear: "Murray was the eldest of the four daughters of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart – a close friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I – and his wife Catherine Bruce." Alternatively, and possibly better from the reader's viewpoint, you could split into two sentences on the lines of "Murray was the eldest of the four daughters of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart, and his wife Catherine Bruce. Dysart was a close friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I."
  • English Civil War and first marriage
  • "Elizabeth developed a reputation for charisma and beauty" – "charisma" seems an odd word here. Except in a theological sense the word was unknown until the 20th century, and in any case I'm not sure how being called "...a pretty witty Lass" makes her charismatic.
  • "likely when his army headquarters were located in nearby Kingston-upon-Thames" – as we are in BrE it would be as well to eschew this AmE construction. The normal usage in the King's English would be "probably when his army headquarters ..."
  • "visited Europe on multiple occasions" – rather a long-winded way of saying "often" or "frequently"
  • "the ability for female heirs to inherit" – unexpected preposition: one might expect "of" rather than "for"
  • "In 1660, when Charles II resumed the throne" – did he resume it? Not crowned or anointed (in England at any rate) before 1660 as far as I know, though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
  • Second marriage
  • "they traveled north to Scotland" – BrE "travelled" needed here.
  • "seeking advice for a new gateway" – another strange preposition: "about" would seem more appropriate.
  • In literature and art
  • "Her patronage of Lely extended over decades, with 4 paintings of her – usual to use words rather than digits for numbers under 10.

Those are my few quibbles. I hope they are useful. Tim riley talk 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciated @Tim riley. I've addressed all your feedback points except for one - the comment about charisma. Elizabeth was known in her time as both an attractive person as well as a great conversationalist. In fact it was her skills in conversation that made her a desirable sparring partner for Oliver Cromwell. I used the word charisma to try & represent that characteristic, but will cede to your expertise in identifying it as anachronistic. I didn't want to belabour the point with a slew of quotes - so wondering what word might you suggest in its place? Appreciate any advice you might have. Thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've answered your own question: as she was known for her beauty and the excellence of her company you could say just that. But if you prefer charisma I am not going to press the point. I'll have a final read-through tomorrow and return here to (I hope) support the elevation of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 20:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is well and widely sourced, excellently illustrated, appears comprehensive and impartial, and is an excellent read. Tim riley talk 10:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance & support @Tim riley! Isaksenk (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Elizabeth_Murray_(1626–1698),_by_Peter_Lely.jpg needs a US tag, and see MOS:CREDITS
  • File:John_Maitland,_1st_duke_of_Lauderdale,_and_his_wife_Elizabeth_Murry,_Duchess_of_Lauderdale_(3977704407).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Nikkimariathanks for pitching in. I believe I've addressed your first point, but I'm struggling to understand the ask on the second point. I think you're asking for data to be added to the Image file on Wikimedia, but I'm not sure what precisely is requested. If you could kindly clarify I'm happy to oblige. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First one is fixed but when checking that I noticed |full name= appears to be broken - suggest correcting
On the second, the current tagging presumably reflects the reproduction of the image. However, what is missing is a tag indicating the status of the original painting. Presumably it is out of copyright due to its age, so we just need a tag added saying so. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Nikkimaria - I believe I've fixed the second one, but I'm unable to find the "full name" tag. I've looked on the page itself, the Wikimedia page for the painting and the Wikidata entry, and I can't find what's broken. Could you please provide a little more detail? Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a result of a change made to the template coding which has now been corrected, so no action needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, thanks for letting me know. Isaksenk (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was also flagging up. Good to know that I wasn't hallucinating. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat edit

I saw this article at GAN, and am intrigued to see it here. Only a couple of comments at the moment:

  • MOS:NUMERAL permits either, but the lead and body are inconsistent between "eleven/11" children, which might be worth standardizing one way or the other ("eleven" probably more natural given "five survived to adulthood")
  • Her dedication to the cause also led her -- I don't know this is the sort of juxtaposition that requires 'also'
  • She and her husband were also granted the freehold of 75 acres surrounding Ham House in recognition of "the service done by the late Earl of Dysart and his daughter." -- MOS:LQ
  • Your last two sections are very short, and could be consolidated into a "Death and legacy" that flows more naturally; the paintings of her could be mentioned more naturally in discussion of her life earlier in the article, while her description in literature is clearly 'legacy'-based

I reserve the right to further comments, but that's all I'm seeing at the moment. Excellent work. Vaticidalprophet 05:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vaticidalprophet thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've addressed points 1 & 2 as specified. For point 3, I wasn't sure what was being requested - was it moving the punctuation outside of the quotes? If yes, I've done that. Finally, I have consolidated the final two sections as suggested. However I struggled to find a way to drop the paintings into an earlier section of the text, as she was painted many times over the course of decades. I chose instead to indicate that the highly notable double portrait remains at Ham, as another notion of legacy. Would that work? Isaksenk (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this slipped my mind -- I've been very busy running the GAN backlog drive :) I intended at some point to make further comments, but have forgotten what they were. Given that, will support here. Vaticidalprophet 07:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Vaticidalprophet greatly appreciated. Isaksenk (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • Four books have publisher locations and three don't. This should be standardised.
    • DONE
  • Seymour is listed under sources, but does not seem to be used as such.
    • DONE
  • In the infobox and the text at least one of her date of birth, date of death or age at death is wrong.
    • DONE
  • In the lead, why is her date of birth cited? Is it particularly contentious?
    • DONE
  • "resumed her close connection to the restored court." "to" → 'with'?
    • DONE
  • "In her own right she was the Countess of Dysart". From birth?
    • DONE
  • "She was famous for the political influence she held". Can one hold influence? Perhaps 'exercised'?
    • DONE
  • "She was famous for the political influence she held and for her support for Charles II during his exile, as a member of the secret Royalist organisation known as the Sealed Knot, which plotted for the return of the monarchy after the execution of Charles I." A bit of a long sentence. Perhaps break?
    • DONE
  • "Full name" in the infobox needs sorting out.
    • DONE
  • "Gentleman of the Bedchamber". Why the upper-case G and B?
    • I looked in Rowell, which is a thoroughly academic source, and it's capitalised there, but if MOS requires lower case, I'll change it.
MOS:JOBTITLE is clear and succinct and worth reading. The usage of sources and external bodies is ignored.
  • OK, now DONE
  • "and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I". In his English or Scottish court? Or both?
    • William was brought to England as a small child to be Charles' whipping boy, and remained at his side from then on. I'm going to assume it's the English court. But is this really critical for an article about Elizabeth?
I don't know - I assume that you are the editor who introduced it. As the first sentence of the lead states that Elizabeth "was a Scottish noblewoman" a reader is likely to assume that any court positions her father held were Scottish ones. In passing, are the sources clear that she "was a Scottish noblewoman", or is it more that she was a noblewoman who held Scottish titles?
  • OK, I see what you mean. She was considered Scottish, despite being born and raised in England. I've added a small edit to the lead to note that she was raised in English court circles - hopefully that makes it clearer.
  • "During the English Civil War ..." Just during the Civil War, or also during the longer Wars of the Three Kingdoms?
    • William was only in service to Charles I, plus a short embassy in 1651 in support of Charles II. He never served Cromwell, nor was involved in any Irish conflicts. So, can it remain as is?
Of course. Just checking.
  • "in service to the king." Upper-case K, per MOS:JOBTITLES? Or is the reference to both Charles's?
    • DONE
  • "Thomas Tollemache, Lieutenant-General". Why the upper-case L and G?
    • DONE
  • I am not sure that the mini-biography "abandoned the family's devotion to the House of Stuart and became a key supporter of William of Orange (later King William III of England)" is helpful. It either needs to include more context or be scrapped.
    • DONE
  • "Ham House near Richmond by the Thames". Perhaps locate Ham House at its first mention in the main article, rather than the third.
    • DONE
I am not sure that it is. The first mention is under "Early life".
  • I've moved it to the second paragraph of the lead.
Anything in the lead needs to also be in the main article. I have added it in there, but if you object could you let me know here and pin me? Thanks.
Understood - I learn something new every day. :-) I've added the links back to ensure there's coverage in both the lead & the body.
  • "becoming suo jure ...". 1. This is the English language Wikipedia, why the lapse into a foreign - and dead - language? 2. Re the link, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." 3. Foreign language words should be in lang templates, not double apostrophes.
    • DONE
  • "A few years later, she wrote to ..." Is "she" still Judith Isham?
    • DONE
  • "an annual pension of £800 (equivalent to £100,000 in 2021)." This is cited to a work published in 2004, which raises an obvious difficulty.
    • DONE
  • "Letters Patent". Again, why the upper-case initial letters?
    • DONE
  • The lead says "her support for Charles II during his exile", which I have no reason to doubt. The only concrete activity given in the main article is her couriering some letters to the continent. This seems remarkably trivial, given the stress in the article on her support for Charles and her involvement in plotting for his return. Are no other overtly supportive actions known?
    • Being a prominent royalist, she came under close scrutiny of Cromwell's agents. In fact, much of her correspondence was intercepted and now remains in national archives. Her travels would therefore have been dangerous - not to mention being nearly constantly pregnant. And I also make mention of her development of an invisible ink. I didn't want to delve too deeply here, but can expand a bit if warranted.
It's "your" article, so if you feel that it is balanced, then fine. If there is a little more concrete detail, and you feel it could be usefully added, then I think that the article could stand that.
  • OK, I've added a small expansion on the topic to further develop the level of effort.
  • "Her title as Countess of Dysart was secured by the grant of new Letters Patent on 5 December 1670, which also reaffirmed the ability of female heirs to inherit the title where no male heir existed." Just a suggestion, but if this were moved to the end of the section, it would maintain its chronological flow.
    • DONE
  • "Soon after his death she became the mistress of John Maitland". Could benefit from being lightly rephrased. (I hope.)
    • DONE (LOL)
  • "for the opening of Parliament". Perhaps specify the Scottish Parliament and Wikilink.
    • DONE

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gog the Mildfor your inputs. I've started working through the list & have a few questions/comments:
  • Point 1 - done
  • Point 2 - that source was originally in an extended Legacy section, but I was told to remove it at PR. I've now removed the unused source.
  • Points 3-8 - done
  • Point 9 - Unclear what's needed. I'm looking at other FA articles, such as Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany and I don't see a "full name" tag used there.
An unfilled template was displaying, but it has now disappeared. So it seems to have resolved itself. (Which is strange.)
  • Point 10 - it's a formal title and the Wikipedia article referencing the appointment shows it capitalised.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. MOS:JOBTITLE applies.
Will have more time later to continue. Thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He resigned his government positions in September 1680". Delete "1680", the year has been established in the previous sentence.
    • DONE
  • "Despite the efforts of Lord Tweedale's son and even James II, the dispute persisted until being settled in the Scottish courts in June 1688, who required Lord Tweedale to cover the debts, while assigning Elizabeth the responsibility for the funeral expenses." What dispute? You haven't mentioned a dispute in this paragraph.
    • It's mentioned in the previous paragraph, but I've expanded it slightly in order to make it more prominent.
  • "Elizabeth had suffered from gout for many years". Avoid switching tenses. Maybe something like 'Elizabeth suffered from gout for many years prior to her death ...'?
    • DONE
  • "keenly interested in the news from Court". Do you mean 'and she was keenly ...', or was it the friends and family who were interested?
    • DONE
  • "The Duchess of Lauderdale died at the age of 72". The infobox says 71.
    • DONE
And in the lead? :-)
  • Oops! Fixed now.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild I've addressed each point, but a few points for your guidance remain. Thank you.
A few come backs above. Rereading, it's a nice little article - good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild I believe I've addressed all your feedback to date, but please let me know if anything is outstanding.

SC edit

Booking a place: will be here when Gog’s done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War
  • "Protecterate"? Protectorate, linked as the Protectorate, seems the right version
Second Marriage
  • "she wrote to her cousin the Scottish architect William Bruce": I use commas a lot less than most, but I can see the benefit of bracketing "the Scottish architect William Bruce" in a pair of them, although I don't push the point too much
Death
  • "Despite that she": comma after "that"

That's it. Very scant fare after the work of others above and what was a good article to begin with. I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SchroCat All points addressed - thanks for your feedback. Isaksenk (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @SchroCat, greatly appreciated.
    @Gog the Mild I believe I've addressed all the open points, but if I've missed anything please let me know. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I formally supported two weeks ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review SusunW edit

Everyone else seems to be working through the prose part, so I will focus on the source review. Comments to follow soon. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments related to sourcing refer to: Special:permanentlink/1167748233.

  • All sources appear to be in title case with appropriate and consistent segmentation of ISBNs. Spot checks reveal no evident issues with copyvios.
  • spot check of [4] verifies info and no copyvios; however, it does not verify the conversion of £800. Seems to me that I recall there is some template that affixes a source for conversions (I am helpless with templates and usually ask Gog the Mild to rescue me), unless you used some other source? It would also be nice to have a conversion on note "a" of £1500 for consistency.
    • I've removed the conversion rate entirely per a comment above. I'm reflecting on a comment from one of my History dissertation advisors, who said that conversions were pointless due to changes in the relative value of goods. So, hopefully there's no objections to the omission.
Your call, but I do find that it is helpful to the reader to have some sort of idea what the numbers meant at the time. this converter says for 1660 that £800 was equal to a skilled tradesman's wages for 11428 days (more than 30 years), but is a database a RS? This journal article says on pp 489-490 that "₤100 was a sum on which a bourgeois family could live for a whole year", so eight times the income of a merchant class family. Your call but I think some idea of what that number means helps the reader. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • spot check [5] verifies info and no copyvios
  • [17] is a dead link. Archival link confirms the information. What makes this a RS? Neither web registration nor publisher registration list an editorial board. Possibly this is a better source.
    • I couldn't access the link you suggested, but I found a nice source from the NPG, which includes an image to boot.
Yes, it's a conundrum. I cannot open many British sources either. You might try to access it removing the ".mx" from the url address. My comment on the NPG gallery source is similar to the village website below, while I cannot verify that the site is curated, they are not likely to make a claim that would damage their reputation. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [25] quote is verified
  • [37] vs. [39] (I cannot find an accessible link for me here in Mexico). 37 cites Adshead as the author and Rowell as the editor. 39 cites Rowell as the author, but the source section lists him as the editor of the book. [51] gives Rowell as pp 116–122, so it looks as if he wrote an article, which we should know the title of, in addition to editing the book? Did Rowell write an article as well as serving as editor or were all of these citations to the article by Adshead? Citations should reflect the author, not the editor, where possible.
    • Thanks for highlighting that. Rowell edited the definitive 2013 book and wrote several of the chapters. But Adshead did write one chapter that contains key info, so I've updated [10] and [13] accordingly.
  • [49] The archive link doesn't work and the original link is dead. Looks like they changed servers, as this link works. Not sure if the source is curated, but snippet views of the History of St. Peter's Church, Petersham, Surrey, p 38 and The Art and Architecture of London: An Illustrated Guide, p 400 confirm the information, even though this says there is no marker. Probably is reliable as I cannot imagine why a village government would distort information about who was buried in their churchyard, but the link needs to be fixed.
    • I've found the current village website and linked it there.

Thank you for your work on her. It is very unusual to have detailed information on 17th century women and I appreciate you and your work on the article. It was a joy to read. Please ping me as my real life is a zoo and although I bookmarked the page, I miss things. (note, 2 "u"s and no "a") SusunW (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SusunW for your feedback and support.
I was hoping you'd address Gog the Mild's comments first as I saw no point in duplicating his comments on sourcing. I'm comfortable passing the sourcing at this point, but I do think you should consider putting the £800/£1500 into perspective. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SusunW for currency converter suggestions. I've added those in place now, and they do help provide some useful context. Greatly appreciated. Isaksenk (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Enjoyed working with you. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gog the Mild I believe that all points raised in review thus far have been addressed, however please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks Isaksenk (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Elizabeth_Maitland,_Duchess_of_Lauderdale/archive1&oldid=1172259074"