Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive2

< 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 10:20, 21 February 2012 [1].

Elizabeth II edit

Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is almost perfectly written and is just about at the level of other British monarch FA's. It could use a couple of revisions, like in the header, but I think it'd be really cool to work out all the kinks by February 6 to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Comments always help! Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hi Rockhead, welcome to FAC. Have you contacted any of this article's editors? Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, he posted at the article's talk page, and the most significant editor agreed that he could nominate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how shortened citations are combined (ex FN 1 vs FN 10)
  • Check wikilinking in footnotes
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books or not
  • Cassell & Co or Cassell and Co? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review.
  • FN 10 corrected
  • Most wikilinks removed
  • The quotation marks used match the original source in all cases
  • Hyphens removed
  • I'm really not keen on adding a location for OUP, because of the duplication "Oxford Oxford" (so good, they named it twice)
  • I've used ampersands because I like the pretty curls. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd keep the ampersand. I looked up Cassell & Co, and that's how it's listed everywhere.
  • I don't think adding the OUP location would look all that bad. The colon kinda separates it out. When I see "Oxford: Oxford University Press", I think "Oxford University Press in Oxford". Unless Nikkimaria agrees with you, I'd change it for the sake of consistency. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, have done as it turns out one of the books is published from the New York office! DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave the article a good article review a few months ago, where my concerns were dealt with. I am happy with the minimal changes since then, and so, after a chat with DrKiernan, I am happy that this article is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - while I've not had the chance to fully review the article, I have read the whole article and enjoyed it very much. It is very readable. If in a week or so you need further review (which I'd need to do before entering a formal support) please let me know (am unlikely to have time before then). Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 09:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. I am tempted to nominate those images that are not free in the US for deletion at Commons; maybe in the process someone more knowledgeable about the matter will have a solution. —Andrewstalk 11:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed it from the article, because it has been nominated for deletion before and kept [3]. But I don't mind if someone wants to remove/replace it or re-start the deletion discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on this file restarted by Adabow here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the general quality of the article (which I read during the blackout via the cache) is good, there are a few concerns that need addressing:-

  • The lead is somewhat muddled, in particular in trying to define what Elizabeth is queen of. The terms "Commmonwealth realms", "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth countries" are all used; do they all mean the same? Is there a distinction between "monarch" and "queen regnant"? In terms of numbers, the arithmetic seems wrong. First you say she is monarch of "the 16 commonwealth realms". When she became queen in 1952 she was queen regnant of seven Commonwealth countries and during her reign she became queen of 25 more countries. 7 + 25 = 32; where does 16 come from? (I know the answer lies in the decolonoisation of Britain's former Empire, but younger and non-British readers won't Know this).
  • She is also queen of a number of "Overseas Territories" which are not Commonwealth realms. The best-known of these are probably Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and the Falklands; there are about a dozen others. These territories are not mentioned anywhere, and should be.
  • The list of 16 countries in the first sentence of the article makes a dull introduction. Consider transferring this, and perhaps other lists (of territories etc) to tables at the end of the article.
  • You should reconsider the wording of: "During her reign of over 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch..." The grammar is dodgy; the sntence will quickly become outdated (60 years in less than three weeks away). "Second-longest" will be superseded if she lasts another 3½ years.
  • under way" is two words, not one.
  • Beyond the lead I made just a few scattered notes:-
    • The implication from the article is that The Little Princesses was published while Elizabeth and Margaret were still children. Perhaps clarify that by "later" you mean "1950".
    • There is explanation later in the article about the meaning of "Heiress presumptive", but it would be better to have this explantion brought forward into the section bearing this name.
    • In the first line of the Second World War section the words "her younger sister" are redundant; by now we know who who Margaret is.
    • Marriage section: The pronoun in "She still required ration coupons..." is unsuitable, as there is too much text since the previous mention of Elizabth by name.
    • In the "Reign" section, "President of the United States Harry S. Truman" is cumbersome. Just "President Truman" with a link will do.
    • "Succession" - shouldn't this be "Accession"? The content of the subsection leads me to think, anyway, the title should be extended to "Accession and coronation"
    • "In 1960, after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill..." makes it seem that these events happened in 1960., rather than seven and five years earlier, respectively.
    • The third paragraph seems to have strayed in from elsewhere, being unrelated to accession or coraonation. If the material is to remain, you should clarify that Armstrong-Jones was elevated to his earldom as a consequence of his marriage.
    • In the "Issue" table it might be worth adding a note that the children of the queen's sons at present have precedence over those of Anne in the line of succession.

I read the article in somewhat restricted circumstances; if I can find the time I may add further comments, but in general this looks a thoughtful and well-constructed article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review.

Well, I'm disappointed with the first three of those responses. The lead as it stands does not in my view meet Featured Article standards, and adamantine statements like "that's not going to happen" make me think it never will. It is essential that lead statements are clear, since the lead is likely the most read part of any article. I simply don't accept that it is impossible to write a lead that does not contain a confusion of terms that require background knowledge to interpret. For instance, the sentence "During her reign of 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch, she became queen of 25 other Commonwealth countries as they gained independence" implies that she was not queen of these countries before—which of course she was. And how can a decision to ignore the Overseas Territories altogether in the article, not just in the lead, possibly be justified? I urgently ask you and other interested editors to reconsider how the lead should be presented. I don't want to oppose this article's promotion, but if the answer really is "it's not going to happen", then I feel I will have no choice. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Brianboulton, I also think the lead should be improved. Can we rephrase it a little? Do we really need the following: In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis ("horrible year"), Charles and Andrew separated from their wives, Anne divorced, and a severe fire destroyed part of Windsor Castle. Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and they divorced in 1996. The following year, Diana died in a Paris car crash, and the media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before her funeral. I think that this article has the potential to be a Featured Article. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the article. It won't be an adequate summary if annus horribilis, her children's marital problems, and Diana's death are excluded from it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe you are correct. I liked this change, it is better now. I am reading the article again, so far, no problems have surfaced. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, I think we should use the modern version: File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg What do you think? Regards Paulista01 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The modern version is copyrighted, whereas the older version's copyright has expired. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've read this article several times over the few years and I find it to be well-written, referenced, impartial and complimented with lovely images --Hadseys (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the article does get promoted perhaps an ideal time to have it on the Main Page would be on Coronation Day, which would be June 2? Just a suggestion --Hadseys (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we can make it, but I think February 6 would be better. It's the 60th Anniversary of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne, her Diamond Jubilee. Queen Victoria was the only British monarch who lived long enough to have her Diamond Jubilee, so it's a huge milestone. Rockhead126 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the date of the official Jubilee not be more appropriate, the 5th of June. --George2001hi (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. I just added 60 years to the actual ascension date. Yes, though, the official date when everyone'll be celebrating is more appropriate. Rockhead126 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An excellent article: informative, referenced, impartial. Its development over the last few years is miraculous. --George2001hi (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - How many supports are required these days? My only suggestion - and it is no more than that - concerns the bit about the Queen paying taxes is in the 1990s section. Consider placing it with "finances". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck of sources -- While the supports are indeed mounting up, I can't see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- did I miss that somewhere? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do it on Monday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotcheck of sources:
      • Okay, went down to the National Library of Australia and pulled some references. Bradford and Brandreth are quite good. Lacey sucks.
      • fn 3, 9, 11, 13, 51, 52, 66, 99, 113, 114, 121, 129, 177 are all okay
      • fn 36: Should be Brandreth pp. 132-139 (corrected)
      • fn 77 "he owned and edited" - close but okay
      • fn 176: Was a bit off. (corrected)

09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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_II/archive2&oldid=1138459376"