Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Extensive rewriting is needed to bring this article to GA status. The prose is confusing and unencyclopedic, and in addition to failing criterion 1a, the article fails 1b (lead, words to watch), 2b and 3b. The lead in particular is a a disaster: not only does it fail to summarize the article, but it contains a peacock phrase and material which is not even discussed in the article (Lully). See below for detailed comments and consensus to delist. Geometry guy 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this article does not currently meet criteria 1a and 1b. The prose is not too bad, but is somewhat unclear and confusing in places. The lead does not adequately summarise the main points of the article and so does not meet WP:LEAD. It also needs a bit more context for readers who have no idea what the Fronde is, or who the famous Lully is. I don't think there's a huge amount of work to be done and the problems should be easily fixable, but I've started a community reassessment because I'm not used to reviewing this kind of article, so I'm not 100% confident "signing off" on a review. Some specific examples of where the prose does not meet 1a:

  • Madame de Saint George, or Madame de Saint Georges? Both are used
  • "Madame de Saint George ... taught the infant to read and write." - I'm not sure that infants are usually taught to read and write.
  • "where seeing him she "flung [myself] into his arms"." - this is a bit confusing; from this I gather that the original quote read "flung herself into his arms", in which case I'm not sure why myself has been substituted. If the original was "herself", then it should be left. "she flung myself" does not make sense.   Done
  • "Gaston resided at Blois where Mademoiselle would be a frequent visitor." - when would she be a visitor?
  • "...the couple undertook nuptials for the third time in July 1643" - I may have missed this, but when were the second nuptials?
  • "...ceased all interest in the prince and thus sighed over a union with her widower..." - "sighed over" seems a bit informal, and a bit old fashioned. Its meaning may be lost on many readers.
  • "...Charles having become the "object of pity"." - I'm not quite sure what this means
  • "...where Mademoiselle was involved in the peace which ended the siege of Bordeaux..." - how was she involved? This seems to have been glossed over a bit.
  • "...which made her look like a "frondeuse" in the eyes of Queen Anne" - I'm not sure what a frondeuse is, or the relevance of looking like one to Queen Anne.
A "frondeuse" was a woman who participated in the "Fronde", a rebellion of nobles against the king. You may remember that Queen Anne and her young son Louis XIV had to flee Paris because of the Fronde: this could be "the relevance of looking like one to Queen Anne."
--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this (and other points) to me, but my point is that it should be clear in the text so that readers don't have to go hunting around for it elsewhere. Obviously, you can't detail the background to everything, it's about getting a balance. Frondeuse is not a common word in English, and not all readers of this article will have a background knowledge of the topic.--BelovedFreak 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LGM's article provides a link to the Fronde article. The words "frondeur" (masc.) & "frondeuse (fem.) stand for the participant in a "fronde" (like "warrior" is to "war"). However, the first meaning of "fronde" is "slingshot", and "frondeur/frondeuse" are users of a slingshot. Slingshot users are generally street kids who will aim at anyone, even figures of authority, with the advantage of being able to shoot from a certain distance & avoid being caught - the parallel being made because the "Fronde" was a direct "slingshot" at the authority of the King. The simplest is probably to follow the French word with its English translation: frondeuse (rebel who participated in the Fronde). There were two Frondes, the first one in 1648-1649 - that of the Parlements against the King, the second one (1650-1653) - that of the nobles, the one in which LGM participated.
--Frania W. (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks. However, this needs to be clear in the article. Readers end up looking at articles for all sorts of reasons and they won't all be proficient in French, and they won't all be familiar with French history. I agree that following the term with an English explanation would help, but with two different (albeit connected) meanings, I would be concerned about straying into WP:OR. Did Sackville-West mean that she looked like a slingshot user in the eyes of the queen, or that she looked like a participant in the civil war? The Queen Anne reference is still not clear. Did she look favourably on Mademoiselle for looking like a frondeuse? Did this impact marriage discussions? I don't understand the relevance. I appreciate that I may be completely dense about this topic, but I won't be the only one!--BelovedFreak 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was only trying to explain to you how the "Fronde" (rebellion) derived its name from the "fronde" (slingshot), as it is an interesting point. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to give that type of explanation in an article where we have to stay focused in order not to lose the reader. I imagine that any reader curious enough knows also how to use a dictionary... So, no mention of slingshot, but explanation necessary on the meaning of "frondeur / frondeuse", the name given to anyone who is on the side of a "Fronde", which is a rebellion against authority; in the case of the article, the authority of the King. Like many high ranking nobles, some of them Princes du Sang, like the Condés, her own father & herself, LGM was fighting in the camp of the "Fronde" against her royal cousin Louis XIV; consequently, Queen Anne looked at her as a "frondeuse", in other words, a "rebel". And the fact that LGM ordered the cannon to be fired from the Bastille in direction of her cousin, which could have resulted in his death had the cannonball landed on him, killed every chance of a marriage between the two. Therefore, "no, Queen Anne did not look favourably on the "frondeuse" Grande Mademoiselle".
What does WP:OR have to do with giving the meaning of "frondeuse" ?
--Frania W. (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is interesting. :) I agree that all of that explanation would not be practical or appropriate to include, as I say, we need to find a balance between one the one hand, keeping it focused and not going off on a tangent, and on the other, providing enough context for the reader. This is partly why I brought this to community reassessment, rather than doing an individual one, because I am far from being an expert on the topic, and would rather other people help judge how much explanation and context is needed. Another option for providing background without disrupting the text, is to use footnotes. That way, readers unfamiliar with the subject can be directed to explanatory notes at the bottom, while those more knowledgeable can just carry on reading. What do you think? By the way, my concern with WP:OR was simply that picking one definition (slingshot user or participant in civil war) could constitute original research, if we don't actually know which one Sackville-West meant.--BelovedFreak 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sackville-West is only quoting Queen Anne who said that LGM was a "frondeuse", which means an active participant of the "Fronde", the rebellion against the royal power, and which can be stated either between parentheses in text, or in a footnote. If kept short, better to have it in text. I do not see any problem with this.
However, what bothers me is not how to handle the word "frondeuse", but the fact that an article in need of so much correction has been given the GA status so quickly before anyone realised what was happening & could put a stop to it. I do not understand the reviewer passing it, it was a mistake that should be recognised, and the article should be delisted immediately, without further ado.
--Frania W. (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is clearer now I understand what the source said. Perhaps it could be worded a little better to make it clear that Queen Anne called her a frondeuse? That may seem obvious, but it was not to me when I first read it. And I agree, if the explanation is short, it will be fine in the text. As for the GA status, this was the reviewer's first GA review. Reviewing GAs can be more complicated than people first think (although they can also be straight forward). In my opinion, (although he may disagree) mistakes were made. Now we are working to correct that. Some things have been fixed already, and hopefully it can stay listed as a GA. If not, there is no harm done, it will be delisted and someone can renominate in the future. I don't know if you have access to many of the sources. It's always useful it the original nominator takes part, as they are usually more able to address the concerns than anyone else. If you have any specific criticisms, concerns or suggestions that haven't been raised yet, then please do.--BelovedFreak 10:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main criticisms & concerns are that an article filled with so many mistakes & inconsistencies was proposed for GA status obviously too early & passed too fast by a reviewer who has no clue on the subject; otherwise, he would not have passed it. The job to do now is not minor editing from the (incomplete) list given here: the whole article has to be reworked section by section, paragraph by paragraph, one sentence at a time Then & only then, and after consultation on talk page with others, should the article be proposed for GA nomination.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even in uncertain times, the subject of a marriage between Mademoiselle and the Prince of Condé arose..." - it's unclear what the uncertain times have to do with her marital status, also - did the Prince of Condé actually propose to her?
  • "The city of Orléans, Mademoiselle's namesake..." - was Orléans really named after her?
  • The canon-firing incident could be described a little more clearly. Did it allow the Prince of Condé into the city? What was the king's reaction? Was she actually sent into exile?
From the Bastille, La Grande Mademoiselle ordered the cannon to be fired in the direction of the spot where Louis XIV was standing & the cannonball missed Louis XIV (the cousin she would have loved to marry) by a few feet. Anyone else ordering a cannon directed at the King's head, and fired, would have later been decapitated - by comparison, exile is sweet punishment.
--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She went with Madame de Fiesque and Madame de Frontenac..." - went where? Into exile or back to Paris? Her return to Paris seems to be mentioned a little to early, because then the narrative goes back to Saint-Fargeau.
  • "...she was unaware of the state of the building and thus stayed at a small residence ..." - she stayed elsewhere because she was unaware of the state of the building? Or because the building was in a bad state?
  • "...stayed at a small residence Dannery..." - a residence called Dannery? In Dannery?   Done the "bailiff received her" part of the sentence suggests that Dannery is the place where the residence was located in. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear what Livres are. As a former student of French, with little knowledge of French history, my first thought was books. A wikilink would help, and should it have a capital "L"?   Done Livres was the former French currency, see French livre. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were lost in the fire, the 200,000 Livres or the exteriors?   Done
  • The bit about her debt is not completely clear. Did her father steal the 800,000 Livres? Did he just make some mistakes with her money that he didn't admit to? Had she already known at that point that she was in debt, without knowing the cause?
  • "At the same time her grandmother the Dowager Duchess of Guise tricked..." - is this at the same time her father got her into debt, or at the same time she discovered her father's culpability?
  • "...tricked Mademoiselle into signing away money to her under false pretences in which her father was involved in causing her relationship with Gaston to deteriorate." - this doesn't really make sense   Done
  • "In 1656, hearing that her father had been excused for his various scandals..." - "various scandals" is a bit vague; excused by whom?
  • "She left for Sedan..." - I wanted to link this to an article, but wasn't sure if it meant Sedan, Ardennes, Château de Sedan or something else.   Done Sedan, Ardennes is where she left for, the court that was established was located in the Chateau. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Duke of Anjou had allegedly courted her..." - allegedly? According to whom?
  • "Despite more dashed hopes, Mademoiselle fell ill in Paris..." - Firstly, why did she have dashed hopes if she was the one who didn't want to be with Philippe? Secondly, why would dashed hopes prevent her from falling ill (why despite?)
  • "The next marriage at court was between Philippe now the Duke of Orléans and known as Monsieur." - this almost sounds like a marriage between two men   Done
  • "Once again ... Louis XIV asked..." - had he asked her before?
  • "Marguerite Louise later asked her ..." - what does later refer to? Later than when?
  • ..."Mademoiselle no longer favoured the Tuscan match unlike before." - not sure the "unlike before" makes sense   Done the unlike before just made the sentence patent nonsense. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This match came in the form of Alfonso VI of Portugal who acceded to the Portuguese throne in 1656 and the brother of Catherine of Braganza." - this sounds like two different people   Done sentence clarified, Alfonso VI was also the brother of Catherine of Braganza. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not at all clear that Antoine Nompar de Caumont and Lauzun are the same person. I had to click throuh to his article to work that out.
  • "Madame Royale, only legitimate daughter of Louis XIV who died young" - who died young?   Done Louis XIV lived over 60 years, his daughter didn't.
  • It's not clear how or when Mademoiselle met Lauzun; the section opens saying that she regretted being away from court because he was there. Had she already met him?
  • I don't understand why the king needed convincing of the match, when it says that he accepted it. Also, is there any particular reason that the court was so against the marriage?
Yes, the particular reason being that in the eyes of the royal court it was a mésalliance: La Grande Mademoiselle was of royal blood, a Granddaugher of France, the cousin of the king, the most important lady in France after the Queen, the richest woman in Europe, and had she been able to marry her younger cousin, she would have been Queen of France. So measured against all that, peanut-size Lauzun just did not have a chance of the Court applauding the (mis)match.
--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lauzun was freed on 22 April 1681 who was obliged to live quietly at Bourbon before returning to Paris (not the court however) to live at the Hôtel de Lauzun in March 1682 Mademoiselle having given the duchies of Saint-Fargeau and Châtellerault to the son of La Montespan." - this sentence doesn't really work   Done

I've also added a {{citation needed}} tag to one direct quote that's missing an inline citation (criterion 2b).--BelovedFreak 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infants are technically any child from the ages of 3-5, any younger and they're considered toddlers. I fail to see how that makes no sense and as such I've stricken that statement. Fixed up some issues as well. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to strike my own comments, Fridae'sDoom. I'm not sure what you mean by technically. According to whom? Where I come from, infants are not 3-5 years old, and are certainly not older than "toddlers"; they are babies. According to our own article, "The term infant is derived from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak or speechless." It is typically applied to children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions vary between birth and 3 years of age." If the term is used differently in France, or was used differently in 17th century France, then that needs to be made clear. Maybe the term is used differently in the US, but I can tell you that the sentence will definitely seem odd to readers from the UK.--BelovedFreak 10:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fridae'sDoom's definition of "infant" vs "toddler" put aside, not having read Sackville-West's book, I have no idea how that author came to use the word "infants" in the context of LGM being taught to read & write. The way it is used in the article reminds me of what the French call a "faux ami", i.e. a word given a wrong translation because it looks like something in one's own language, in this case, mistaking the English "infant" (baby) for the French "enfant" (child). ((Beside the more familiar "bébé", a baby is called a "nourrisson" in French, that is, a baby "breast- (or bottle-) fed".) In French, "infant" is the title given the Spanish royal children. Even if "infant" had been used at the time of LGM's youth, it would have had the broader sense of "child", not "infant" in the modern English sense. Words sharing the same root follow different paths from one century to another and from one language to another.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change it initially because I wasn't sure if the meaning was related to the Spanish one. I've now changed it to "child". Since it's not a quote, it doesn't need to be the same word that the source uses, and I think child covers all bases.--BelovedFreak 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over half the listed issues have been addressed, I'm going to send a message via MessageDeliveryBot to the most recent contributors to the article. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 02:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until all the many "issues" have been fixed, I believe the GA template should be removed.
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way it works, see WP:GAR for more information, this reassessment lasts for a certain period of time, if no one addresses the issue then the reassessment is closed and the article delisted. I've notified all the recent contributors, hopefully the prose quality, or lack thereof, will improve. When addressing the issues listed here provide an explanation while also updating the article itself. So perhaps you may wish to clarify the statement. Regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 04:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my statement means that since the article was far from being up to GA status when given the Good Article label, the GA template was put up in error & should be removed. Frania W. (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are now looking into if the article meets GA criteria. Each person puts forward their view, and when at least seven days have passed and there is a clear consensus, then the GAR will be closed and either the article will remain listed as a GA or it will be delisted. Until there is a clear consensus that the article does not meet GA criteria and time has been given to allow editors to address the issues, then it remains listed as a GA. SilkTork *YES! 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Delist. At first I thought it could be brought to meet GA criteria, but the closer one looks, the more problems one encounters. The prose, in particular, needs attention. The WP:Lead needs to be built up to become a more satisfactory stand alone summary of the article. There are various statements that could be challenged which are unsourced - "The influence of Cardinal Mazarin was also opposed." "Until the birth in 1638 of her cousin, the future King Louis XIV, she was the most important child at the French royal court." "Frequently involved in conspiracies against Louis XIII and his unpopular chief advisor, Cardinal Richelieu, he was often on bad terms with the court and thus banished on several occasions." "In 1656, hearing that her father had been excused for his various scandals, Mademoiselle herself said she would forget the bad blood caused by his financial misdemeanours and thus the once close relationship between father and daughter resumed." etc. The prose is uneven. There are some short paragraphs which don't assist flow, and the meaning of some statements is not clear - "Soon after, at the death of Empress Maria Anna, Mademoiselle ceased all interest in the prince and thus sighed over a union with her widower, Emperor Ferdinand III, Charles having become the "object of pity"." Looking closer the article is in need of a decent copy-edit by someone who knows the subject, as the meaning cannot always be worked out from the context. It's not made clear that Lauzun is also Antoine Nompar de Caumont. In the lead it says "she eventually fell in love with Antoine Nompar de Caumont and scandalised the court when she asked Louis XIV for permission to marry him, as such a union was viewed as a mésalliance" - while the main body says - "The joy was not to last; Louis XIV opposed the match and thus called off the engagement on 18 December stating that the match would damage his reputation however court disapproval was the main reason." The two statements should match more closely. I haven't looked deeply into the article, though would say that - at the least - the lead, the prose, and the references need to be addressed, and I suspect that it would take more than seven days to cover what is needed. Delist, work on the issues, and resubmit for review. SilkTork *YES! 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delist yet - Give the contributors a chance to fix up the listed issues and discuss others that need addressing, all though I do agree with what SilkTork says I think that the contributors that have been notified should be given a chance to fix up certain issues. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 05:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article going to go from now, the contributors I have notified haven't made many edits and Frania Wisniewska, BelovedFreak and I seem to be the only 3 people who've actually done something to help improve the factuality and readability of the article. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:38pm • 09:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a vote, but just so there's no confusion or premature closures, I think in the state it is, the article should be delisted. The prose still needs work, and the issues mentioned above need addressing by someone with access to the source material.--BelovedFreak 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to work on it peacefully, I have made a special dossier for this article in my computer & highlighted in red what needs edited: well over fifty percent of the article is bolded in red. You have no idea the work that has to be done to this piece, which does not mean that it could be considered GA material after correction.
Beside, the above list is not complete; for instance:
Some quotes are not given correctly, such as:
  • Mademoiselle always had a great sense of her own self importance and when asked about her maternal grandmother the Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse she replied that she was not her grandmother because she was "not a queen".
This is not what the child replied, she never said that Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse was not her grandmother. The exact quote in the first tome of her mémoires is: ‘Elle est ma grand-maman de loin ; elle n’est pas reine’ » She is my grandmother from far away; she is not queen."
  • "Louis proposed she marry Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy who had previously married Mademoiselle's younger half sister Françoise Madeleine."
If the reader does not go immediately to the article on Françoise Madeleine, he may not realise that she had recently died, so the sentence may lead him to believe that Louis XIV was proposing a "ménage à trois" to his cousin, which would have made the Duke of Savoy a polygamist.
  • "An angry Louis thus ordered she return to Saint-Fargeau for having disobeyed him. This "exile" lasted roughly a year and during it she began to make repairs to the Château d'Eu where she began to write her memoirs."
Saint-Fargeau is in Bourgogne. Eu is in Normandy. How can she, when ordered to residence at Saint-Frageau begin repairs at her château d’Eu & begin writing her memoirs there when it is stated somewhere else in the article that she began writing her memoirs in Saint-Fargeau?
As I wrote earlier, the article has to be gone through word by word, a huge task that cannot be done in a week, unless the editor has nothing else to do.
Then a cherry was put on the cake when, four days after putting this article up for GA status, the same contributor proposed for GA another article[[1], in need of as much editing.
This article should have been delisted over a week ago, as proposed by reviewer SilkTork on 12 September.
P.S. By the way, I would like to add that I am the foreigner here whose mother tongue is not English.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Anne_Marie_Louise_d%27Orléans,_Duchess_of_Montpensier/1&oldid=1218892086"