Wikipedia:Featured article review/George IV of the United Kingdom/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 20:51, 5 March 2007.

---

George IV of the United Kingdom

Messages left at Lord Emsworth, British Royalty, Biography and Brighton. LuciferMorgan 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A disproportionately low number of references for an article of this size, not to mention the lone inline citation. -Pandacomics 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have Steven Parissien's biography, the DNB and Michael de-la-Noy's pocket biography. I'll read through these and add citations but it'll take me at least a week. DrKiernan 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could do with a general tidy-up along with the referencing, and perhaps a copyedit. For instance,

• First two sentences of "Early life" don't remind you in which year he was born, requiring you to scroll up. Isn't there a location for his birth?
• The Prince of Wales turned 21 in 1783, when he obtained a grant of £60,000 from Parliament and an annual income of £50,000 from his father. - makes it sound like he turned 21 because he obtained a grant.
• George was a talented student, quickly learning to speak not only English but also French, German and Italian. - why not just "to speak English, French, German and Italian"?
• Gets a bit oversectioned later on in the article, one paragraph is only 6 words long.
• Table for "Issue" seems a bit superfluous.

All this is obviously secondary to referencing though. Trebor 18:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Added some referencing, though it still needs a lot more esp. around his regency, reign, and legacy. Implemented some of Trebor's suggestions as well. Should facts be referenced in the lead even if they are cited later in the article?Mocko13 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, Mocko, you're doing great stuff again! Extraordinary facts or direct quotes in the lead should be referenced, but "basic" stuff that is just summarizing text that is cited elsewhere in the article need not be cited in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The regency and reign sections are now fully referenced. DrKiernan 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sources — coming along nicely.
• The prose — it needs a bit of work still. Few examples:
  • "According to The private letters of Princess Lieven to Prince Metternich, 1820–1826 edited by Quennell (1937) the King merely pretended to have fought at Waterloo disguised as General Bock in order to annoy the Duke of Wellington." Redundant "in order" to.
  • "Following the passage of a number of preliminary resolutions, Pitt outlined a formal plan for the Regency, suggesting that the powers of the Prince of Wales be greatly limited (among other things, the Prince of Wales would be able neither to sell the King's property nor to grant a peerage to anyone other than a child of the King)." Instead of parenthesis, you might get away with a semicolon. However, I think a good idea is to include a semicolon beween Regency and suggesting (...Regency; he suggested that...), and then a seperate sentence starting at among. "A number of" can probably go.
  • "George IV spent the majority of his reign in seclusion at Windsor Castle,[46] but continued to interfere in politics." "the majority" should be changed to "most". A "he" is also needed between "but" and "continued".
  • The heading "Titles, styles, honours & arms" should read "Titles, styles, honours, and arms" (serial comma can be excluded if not used throughout article). However, I think this needs a more general name, because each subsection is named one of those four items.
  • "On George's death The Times commented unfavourably:" Missing a comma. Also, "unfavourably" is POV; leave the reader to decide that based on the quote.
  • Likeness, geological references, and fashion can just be turned into paragraphs. The "in culture" is fine as a subheading, but it needs the word "popular" in it.
  • Other minor issues; I'll give it a quickie ASAP. Sorry if my writing here is confusing and/or poor; I'm not feeling very well and my keyboard is acting weird. — Deckiller 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Done all prose comments above. DrKiernan 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The article is coming along really nicely in my opinion. — Deckiller 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am happy to support the biographical part of the article. As far as I am concerned it is 100% verifiable. However, the legacy section is weaker. For example: "Because of the monarch's unpopularity, the monument was torn down in 1845" - no citation. DrKiernan 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide - Can we decide here on what to call the section containing honours, titles, styles, arms, ancestors, issue, etc? I've suggested Trivia, User:Deckiller suggests Other information, User:DBD originally suggested Titles, styles, honours, and arms. Alternatives would be Miscellanea, Addenda, Additional information, Supplementary information, and Appendices. DrKiernan 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd use Titles, styles, honours, and arms. It is precise enough that it removes the temptation from passing editors to see it as the place to dump trivia along the lines of "In an episode of 24 one of the characters is named George Iv", is similar to the titles used on other British royalty articles, and is identical to those used on his close predecessors and successors. Yomangani^talk 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Status: How do people feel about closing this one? Marskell 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm for closing. DrKiernan 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.