Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom
- 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom edit
Self nomination. This article was rewritten in mid November, and passed a Good Article nomination. The reviewer picked up a few minor points that would improve the article and suggested that I nominate it here. These points have now been addressed. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. The prose are in good order; it is fully referenced; and all the images are free and suitable. PeterSymonds | talk 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<a>*Opppose. I think the article could benefit from a copyedit. Some parts of it seem to be a little POV or melodramatic rather than having a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The prose could also be tightened quite a bit; there are lots of overused phrases, unnecessary summarization, and repetition. Here are some examples of sentences that struck me as particularly wrong, as well as a few other things I noticed.
The last paragraph of the lead seems a little less encyclopedic. I would remove the first sentence of that paragraph about tragedy striking again, and remove the parenthetical reference to Prince Henry as Liko (this information is fine in the article but doesn't need to be in the lead).- Addressed.
I don't like this sentence "However, her time of recuperation at White Lodge at Richmond Park, and at Balmoral, counted for nothing, as on..." Perhaps rewrite as "Victoria again leaned heavily on Beatrice and Alice after the death of Albert on 14 December of typhoid fever." I would then remove the first sentence of the next paragraph about the queen's death being "Beyond the imagination" -- that seems a little melodramatic.- Addressed
The last sentence of the second paragraph of the devoted companion section is repetitive and should be removed.- Addressed.
Awkward sentence: "However, regardless of whether either of them had feelings for each other, the death of the Prince Imperial in the Anglo-Zulu War, on June 1, 1879, ended that possibility. " The next sentence makes it obvious that Beatrice had some feelings for him. Perhaps rephrase as "Rumors ended with the death of the Prince Imperial in the Anglo-Zulu War on June 1, 1879."- Addressed.
Repetitiveness in first 2 sentences of next paragraph about the Grand Duke of Hesse (why is the phrase "put forward" used so many times in this section? Please vary.)- Addressed.
Need a citation for Victoria's feelings about the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill- Addressed.
"Although Beatrice's marriage was dealt another blow," - does not make sense; she was not married.- Addressed.
Awkward construction here: "However, the thought of losing the daughter she had fought so hard to keep for herself was the reason for her reaction"- Addressed.
This sentence seems unnecessary "The devoted daughter was, if only for a short time, free of her mother" - can it be removed?- Addressed.
Even if you keep the reference to "Liko" in the lead, this also needs to be explained in the body of the article (per WP:LEAD). I also think that he should not be referred to as his nickname in the article because that is not very formal. See WP:MOSBIO- Addressed.
This seems very melodramatic - "the happiness she had when he returned far outweighed the sadness of his departure" - can it be rephrased?- Addressed.
- " lovingly fulfilled her promise " -> is lovingly necessary? This seems a bit POV.
Why is "Tableau vivant" capitalized?- Addressed.
This seems to be unnecessary repetition - "As her mother had been the purpose of her existence for so many years, the thought of being without her could not be imagined: she wrote to the principal of the University of Glasgow in March, “...you may imagine what the grief is. I, who had hardly ever been separated from my dear mother, can hardly realise what life will be like without her, who was the centre of everything.” I would rephrase it "As she wrote to the principal of hte University of Glasgow in March, "......""- Addressed.
"Nevertheless, their relationship was not strained, except during Edward's coronation" -this implies that the relationship was strained during the coronation and that she dropped her book on purpose. Does the article actually mean that the relationship was strained as a result of the book dropping?- Addressed.
"was an area in which Beatrice excelled in" -> please remove second "in"- Addressed.
This sentence doesn't make sense "A calm temper and a warm heart, the princess won wide approval when attending royal visits"- Addressed.
This part of the 2nd paragraph of Assessment section seems to be an unnecessary summary of previous text: "Beatrice's life coincided with the death of her mother's beloved husband and companion, Prince Albert. As Victoria's elder daughters married and left their mother, Beatrice, who had been groomed for the role of her mother's personal companion, became increasingly aware that her position would not allow her to marry. Content with this, Beatrice made the most of her time, and enjoyed the utmost confidence of her royal mother."- Addressed.
I would remove these 2 sentences: Beatrice had lived through all the major events and upheavals of the Royal family, including the Abdication crisis, involving her great-nephew, King Edward VIII, although her personal views on this event are not recorded.[72] Had she lived three more years, she would have seen the British Empire, of which her mother was the undisputed figurehead, crumble, with Indian independence being declared in August, 1947." She obviously didn't live through ALL the major events and upheavals of the Royal Family as there were plenty before and after her lifetime. Also, by singling out what happened three years after her death, the article ignores other important events in the British Empire/Great Britain that happened after her death. Please remove both of these sentences.- Addressed.
Full dates in references need to be wikilinked; Reference 77 should have the "th" removed from the dates- Addressed.
- Is regiments.org considered a reliable source?
- Questionable.
Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have gone through your comments and changed the article to incorporate your suggestions. As for the regiments.org as a reliable source, I'm sure it is, though I will have to let someone else judge that. Thanks for your constructive criticism! PeterSymonds | talk 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also in response, I have requested the League of Copyeditors to review this article. However, if anyone could add any more suggestions while this is an FAC, it would be more appropriate, as I will devote as much time as I can to this nomination. PeterSymonds | talk 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Copyedited by Finetooth between 11 January and 12 January 2008. PeterSymonds | talk 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a few minor changes yesterday, but otherwise this is a well-written and well-cited article. Nice work! Coemgenus 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
(1). "Victoria leaned heavily on Beatrice", seems a bit unlikely as she was only 4.
- Oops, I meant after all of the children had married, ie. after 1871. This should now be more clear. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(2) "These mundane duties mirrored the duties performed in succession by Alice, Helena and Louise were soon upgraded by Victoria, who, during a serious illness of 1871, dictated her journal to Beatrice." I don't understand, please re-phrase.
- Addressed. Is this clearer? PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Are Dennison's opinions shared by the other biographers (particularly on family jealousy and the children rebelling because she was bad mother)? If not, they may need toning down or qualifying.
- Addressed. Removed the reference to jealousy; I can't see it mentioned by Duff. Dennison is drawing conclusions based on Primary Sources in the Royal Archives. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(4) The image Image:Princess Beatrice wheelchair.jpg has no source indicated and hence the copyright tag is slightly dubious.
- Addressed; I've removed it. It's bad quality anyway. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(5) "Rarely seen in public after her mother's death" is almost contradicted by "Beatrice continued to appear in public after her mother's death."
- Addressed. Thanks for spotting that; I've rephrased the lead. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(6) "[Alphonso and Ena's marriage] started auspiciously" What about the bomb?
- Addressed. It was mainly attempting to describe their early closeness to eachother, but I've included the bomb problem. It was a bit silly of me to miss it out. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A well referenced biographical article. One of the finest on wikipedia. LordHarris 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport. A few points:Is the article intended to be in British English or American English? I noticed "favored", which is American, following immediately by "favourite". I personally don't care which you use but I would have thought British English would be the natural choice for the topic.- Indeed, addressed. It must've been added during copyedit.
I'm not familiar with the infobox you're using, but it has a "Details" link next to the titles that is attempting to link to a section named "Titles". Your section is named slightly differently, so I'd suggest you either drop the link from the infobox or fix the infobox so the link works.- Hmmm, interesting. I can't find the link in the infobox (the box was constructed long before I started the rewrite). I'll look harder :)
- Ah, it's part of the infobox template. I've flagged the issue on the template's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSymonds (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has now been fixed per template talk. PeterSymonds | talk 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, interesting. I can't find the link in the infobox (the box was constructed long before I started the rewrite). I'll look harder :)
- I see that the fix was to tweak the template so it uses the form of section name you use. That works for you, but may break the use of the template elsewhere. Anyway, that's not a FAC issue, so I'm striking this.
- The projector director made the change. Hopefully there may be some consensus with the British royalty pages. PeterSymonds | talk 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it significant that the Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia did not attend the wedding? If it's because they are close relatives, perhaps that could be mentioned -- if they're already mentioned in the thicket of titles I apologize, but it's quite hard to keep track of the names. You mention Gladstone too; as I understand it he left office in July of 1885, though I don't know the date. It wouldn't hurt to mention to the reader that Gladstone was Prime Minister at the time -- I knew who he was, but had to look up the dates of his ministry to be sure, and still don't really know because it could have been Lord Salisbury by the 23rd of July as far as I can tell.- Addressed your first point by adding the fact that the CP and CPss of Prussia were her sister and brother-in-law. Addressed your second point by adding some more information to the refnote.
her children, who rebelled at school: I think it would be good to get a little more detail on what the rebellion consisted of -- the children's early years aren't covered in much detail, and this is a point that illuminates her relationship with them.- Addressed.
- This looks good. There is one point I think could be tweaked: the "She" in the last sentence could refer to either Beatrice or the governess. I assume it's the latter, so perhaps make it "in their mother, and had also" to eliminate the ambiguity.
- Addressed.
- Glad I mentioned this; looks like I'd actually misinterpreted it. Your fix does the job.
At the moment, there's no point in the main text where you list her children's names. You say "after the birth of her four children", in the section "Victoria's last years", but don't name them. Then after Victoria's death, Ena and Maurice are named: Ena is named as Beatrice's daughter, but the first mention of Maurice is the image caption, with no description of who he is. Alexander and Leopold aren't named till the end of that section. I know it's a bit pedestrian, but I think the names of her children shouldn't wait till very long after we're aware she has them, though there can be some leeway.- Addressed.
Alphonso blamed Beatrice . . . and never voluntarily spoke to her again: I clicked through to the article on Ena, which says it was Ena Alphonso never forgave, so I thought I should check: is "Beatrice" an error for "Ena" here?- Hmmm, it was definately Beatrice he never spoke to again; I was sure I read it on the DNB. It is strange, because the exact phrase was, "[Alfonso] blamed Beatrice for the transaction of haemophilia to the Spanish royal house, and never voluntarily spoke to her again". However, my source memory fails me! I've therefore changed the sentence for reliability, and will change it back when I find where that quote came from.
She was much involved in collecting material for the Carisbrooke Castle museum, which she opened in 1898: how about making this "She had been much involved"; the previous sentences relate to the period after Victoria's death, so I think you need the past perfect tense here.- Addressed.
*What does the royal family continued to flourish along her brother's line mean?- Addressed, small prose change for clarity.
the death of her favourite son, Maurice, in war in 1914: presumably should be either "in the war" or "in World War I".- Yes, it should. Addressed.
but this did change her willingness to cater to her mother's needs: should be "did not change"?- Yes, how strange. Addressed.
You give the date of the sale of Osborne Cottage as 1913 and 1912, at two different points; which is correct?- Addressed; it was definately 1912.
- -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have switched to support above; the two remaining issues are quite minor. Thanks for an interesting article. 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your valuable contributions. PeterSymonds | talk 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.