Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

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 00:08, 17 February 2008.

---

Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

Check external links

Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been reviewed extensively against the FA criteria by DrKiernan, Karanacs and The Rambling Man and I believe it now meets the criteria. All comments will be addressed as swiftly as possible. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not time to read it through right now, but it looks good. However, from the lead:

• "She was also a supporter of the women's movement" - can we be a little more specific? That links to feminism, are we talking about the suffragettes?
  • Feminism. Though she later regretted it when she became a Reactionist. It's now more specific.
• "and was known to Josephine Butler and Elizabeth Garrett" - royalty tends to be known to everyone at the time. Can we find a more precise verb? "associated" "admired"??
  • Indeed. She visited one and corresponded with the other, so I thought I'd sum up with "known to". I've now made it more specific. PeterSymonds | talk 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--Doc^g 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks good. Juliancolton (Talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support There's a few places where it would benefit from slight reordering of material, but in the round a good, thorough and well researched piece.--Doc^g 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support glad to be of help at the extensive peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Very good :-) jskellj (msg) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I removed {{British princesses}} from this as a)Drop-down templates are ugly and apparently don't work in certain browsers/skins. b)The template is quite incoherent - it refers to princesses by numbered generations (1-11) without any hint as to what it is numbering from. I've been reverted, with the explanation as to the meaning of the generation in the edit summary? As this template seems to depreciate this otherwise excellent candidate, I'd like some views here.--Doc^g 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who generally dislikes too many infoboxes/templates in an article, I completely agree. Does the British princesses template really add anything to the article anyway? There is a category for (see Category:English and British princesses) so why the extra need for a template? PeterSymonds | talk 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Collapsing Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses

• Support with some comments Excellent article:
  • It says Louise was Victoria's "seventh pregnancy". I wasn't aware Victoria had lost any children. Indeed her DNB entry says "The queen suffered no miscarriage or stillbirth, and all her children survived to adulthood, a situation unusual even among the Victorian upper classes." Could you check please?
    • Addressed. For some reason someone changed all the "sixths" to "sevenths" earlier on, and I changed them all back, but missed that one. I've made it clear.
  • The sentence "Louise was bored by the court, and by fulfilling her duties...she had more responsibility than she had before." is a little unwieldy.
    • Addressed.
  • "When Queen Victoria had visited the house before her husband became the Duke...By the time of her brother's accession" Confusing pronouns: Queen Victoria's husband wasn't the Duke and her brother wasn't King! DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ooh, what a mess. Addressed. Thanks for spotting these problems. PeterSymonds | talk 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.