Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anne, Queen of Great Britain/archive1

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 not promoted by DrKiernan 14:58, 11 October 2011 [1].

Anne, Queen of Great Britain[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former featured article, which has been on the main page already, and now hopefully restored to glory. DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a former featured article and has already appeared on the Main Page (links: WP:Featured article candidates/Anne of Great Britain; WP:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain/archive1; WP:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain/archive2). Ucucha (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

I'm surprised no one from Milhist has added our project's tag to this article yet, and I'd like to ask for feedback on that. Milhist generally tags an article on a head of state during a time of conflict, but when other wikiprojects are involved, we don't mind not tagging, or we can tag but take a back seat. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, no objections ... tagging for Milhist. I'll get to work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 53: do we have a date for the original entry?

Green just says "op.cit." without a date

Are the Britannica entries attributed to anyone?

Added

FNs 55 and 180 should be similarly formatted

55 replaced

No citations to Somerset 2012

Removed.

Where is New Haven?

The source says "New Haven and London" without further disambiguation

New Haven, Connecticut Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest "UK" instead of "England" for Cambridge. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"England" removed; changed to "Cambridge: University Press" to match the source. Many thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"St. James", "St. George", "St. Paul": I'm confused because I see them with and without the full stop.

I can't see any without. And I'm surprised because I was especially careful in making sure they all had one.
- Oops, I mean I'm confused about how BritEng handles full stops after "St"; I see it both ways, though usually without the full stop. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've removed them all as none of the linked articles have them. DrKiernan (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord Mulgrave (later the Duke of Buckingham)": I took the last bit out of the link; links to a name are general a noun phrase rather than noun phrase/adverb/noun phrase.
"Anne was reproached for showing no concern at the news of her father's flight, and instead merely asked for her usual game of cards.": If she was reproached for asking for a card game, then: "asking"
"as parliamentary governance unfolded ...": A plot can unfold; I'm not sure about governance.
"the traditional religious practice of touching for the King's evil ...": Some will want quote marks around the link; it depends a bit on whether you're comfortable relying on the link itself to perform the same function.
"to cause party faction.": Not familiar with "faction" in this sense.
"Sovereign": why uppercase?
"The leadership of the Admiralty, nominally under the control of Anne's husband, Prince George of Denmark, was unpopular amongst the Whig leaders. Anne was devastated by his death ...": Something doesn't work there.
"The Duchess arrived at Kensington Palace shortly before George died, and after his death insisted that Anne left Kensington for St. James's Palace against her wishes.": insisted that Anne leave? - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Changes made. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Well done. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Just one point, and I generally stay away from making judgments on matters like these: two hidden comments seem to be saying that some of the text is copied verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Some editors will ask for quote marks when public domain text is copied, some will ask for attribution, some will ask for a notice somewhere on the page that some of the text is copied from the relevant PD source, and a few aren't happy with copied text anywhere in a FAC regardless of attribution. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences were already in the article before I started on it, and I only spotted that they were copied verbatim after the start of the FAC.[2][3] Nikkimaria asked who had written the EB article, and so I read it for the first time then. Ideally, I would prefer to find some other way of phrasing these two clauses. The language is old-fashioned and has a different "voice". DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paraphrasing would be good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's this like?[4] DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know actually, because I don't know what "all deference due to her rank was abandoned" and "promising its restoration" mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comments - looking over now. queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lede is a bit choppy, but subject matter is tricky. Will muse on this and post more.

I'd link to wiktionary or explain "suppositious".

The prose uses lots of short sentences, which come over as a tad on the choppy side. I'm not seeing any overt clangers or deal-breakers but am looking to see if I can make the prose flow a little bit better.

Is there a single sentence that can be added (and sourced) that says she had a distant or difficult relationship with her father? It seems pretty obvious from reading but isn't explicitly stated anywhere

Is there no more commentary on her relationship with abigail which can be added? Is that discussed anywhere in sources?

The pop culture segment could do with some overriding sentences (if there are any) about whether portrayals are generally unfavourable or favourable

Anyway, I'll see what some others think of the prose and have a look-see later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An excellent article which is informative and in general a pleasure to read. Here are a few minor suggestions, and a couple (the last two) of slightly more substantial points.

I believe "Privy Council" should always be capitalised.
The neutral encylopaedic tone is missing in this extract (I have italicised the offending words): "Anne was dismayed. When Sarah forwarded an unrelated letter from her husband to Anne, with a covering note continuing the argument, Anne wrote back pointedly, "After the commands you gave me on the thanksgiving day of not answering you, I should not have troubled you with these lines, but to return the Duke of Marlborough's letter safe into your hands, and for the same reason do not say anything to that, nor to yours which enclosed it." (I must say I have some difficulty in working out what Ann was actually saying.) Later, the use for emphasis of the phrase "over and over" also militates against a neutral tone.
No reason is given for the "almost-square coffin".
"The Electress Sophia died on 8 June" → "The Electress Sophia had died on 8 June,...", followed by "so..." not "and so"
Don't you think that ten images of the Queen (not counting the coin) is a bit excessive? Why not use a few images of other contemporary figures, e.g. her father, the Churchills, the "Old Pretender", George of Hanover, etc? Her reign was full of great names, and some pics of them would provide some welcome variety in the presentation.
To me, the "popular culture" section adds nothing substantial to the article, while providing a possible magnet whereby drive-by editors can add all sorts of trivia based on period TV productions or other dubious sources. Why do you consider the section important or necessary?

I'm definitely leaning supportwards, and look forward to your responses to the above.Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cas and Brian, for reading through so carefully and for taking so much time and care over your reviews. I really do appreciate it, and I shall certainly act on your comments over the coming months. However, I now believe it was a mistake to nominate this article before the publication of Somerset's new biography, which could lead to re-drafting. I have decided to wait until I have read the newer works before proceeding with a third FAC.

Thank you to all the reviewers for their very sensible and welcome comments. DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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