Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince William, Duke of Gloucester/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Prince William, Duke of Gloucester[edit]

Prince William, Duke of Gloucester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William was second-in-line to the British throne for his lifetime. His death at the age of 11 in 1700 precipitated a succession crisis, which culminated in the co-option of the Hanoverians as the British royal family. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment, leaning to support: An interesting shortish article on an often-overlooked turning point in British history. I have made a few very minor adjustments to the text, and have a few issues for consideration:
  • In the lead, you refer to the Bill of Rights 1689 as the basis for the Protestant line of succession after William and Mary. In the text, you merely say that parliament "recognised" the pair as king and queen, and "recognised" Anne as the heir presumptive. I think a reference to the Bill of Rights is necessary here.
  • Added.
  • Can you clarify the age at which Gloucester was placed with a governess? From the text it reads as if he was only three weeks old, so the term "governess" is slightly odd. And would a woman of Lady Fitzharding's status have been described as a "governess", which implies a servant?
  • She was governess, just as Marlborough was governor. As Mrs Berkeley, she had been governess to Anne's earlier two daughters, and it was usual for royal children to be placed in the care of other nobles very early in life.
  • Can loose phrasing like "a couple of years" be avoided?
  • I've added a date from which to start but the end date is not given by the sources available to me.
  • A date or year should be given for the "Horse Guards" display.
  • Again, I can't pin it down from my sources beyond saying it was 1693 or 1694.
  • What is the relevance of mentioning the Fenwick plot?
  • It introduces the reason for Gloucester writing the loyal address to William.
  • What would have been the Earl of Marlborough's duties, as Gloucester's "governor", bearing in mind the earlier appointment of the bishop?
  • This is not explicit but I had assumed that the governor had overall responsibility for the household and care of the prince, while the preceptor was the chief tutor.
  • "Anne was prostrate with grief, taking to her chamber unwell." Last word probably unnecessary.
  • Removed.
  • I would like to see a couple of sentences added to the article, at the end of the "Death" section. At present, the final sentence says no more than has been given in the lead, which gives the article an unfinished feel. I think you should add something like: "Sophia predeceased Anne by a few weeks; on the queen's death on 1 August 1714, Sophia's son George ascended the throne as the first British monarch of the House of Hanover". That way, the full consequence of Gloucester's death becomes explicit.
  • Added.

I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Changes [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above responses are fine. I have upgraded to support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellently done (wonder if this will be the shortest-lived person whose biography will reach FA) Just a few suggestions

Lede
  • Is it really necessary to preface James, William, and Mary's names with "King" or "Queen", given the regnal numbers?
Birth and health
  • "was recognised as their heir presumptive" Since you use "recognised" earlier in the sentence, would "designated" be better? Also, why "heir presumptive" rather than "heiress presumptive". I know you are precise about these things, but I'm curious.
  • Is it worth mentioning the witnesses to William's birth? I'd imagine they sent along some royal officials to do so.
Education
  • "local children" Not quite sure where William is right there. Kensington?
  • " the Countess of Marlborough," Is it possible to refer to her as "Sarah, Countess of Marlborough", to better hint to the reader this is the same woman who becomes so influential once Anne becomes Queen?
  • "he was blooded" I'd clarify what is meant here for those who are unfamiliar with the phrase.
  • I seem to recall a tale (in a book about the history of the English nanny, which I no longer have) that one of William's governesses treated him very strictly, and when she died, the Queen asked him if he was sorry for her death, to which he replied "No, ma'am". If one of your sources contains that, it might be worth considering for a mention.
  • Some mention of the continued unfruitful attempts of George and Anne to provide a spare for the heir might be good.
Death
  • Was Anne able to attend her son's funeral?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and review. Changes [3]. Surtsicna and I deliberately chose name forms with single clauses, to avoid breaking up sentences with too many commas. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a very interesting and well written article. The reviews given above and the following improvements secured this FAC's position in my opinion. It has my full support. --Lecen (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Well written and lots of information. Love how details and explanations given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspea213 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I managed to miss such an interesting topic on the FAC list! A few thoughts-

  • " William and his wife, James's elder daughter Mary, were recognised by the English and Scottish parliaments as king and queen, and as they had no children Mary's younger sister, Anne, was designated their heiress presumptive." This is a clause-packed sentence. I recommend splitting it into two?
  • Are any of the odes worth redlinks? Also, unless "ode" is being used in a different way, I suspect they'd count as poems, and so be formatted in speech marks. Only "long or epic poems" would have their titles in italics.
  • Why have you included but not cited the Journal of Medical Biography article?

The heraldry jargon is incomprehensible to me, but, other than that, the article was an excellent read. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you.
    • Split
    • I guess they count as "cantatas and motets". They are choral musical compositions.
    • To be honest, I don't recall. I don't have access to it now, but perhaps I did at one time. I suspect I found it useful as a confirmation of material that is already cited from elsewhere but did not find that it contained anything otherwise not covered. It seems to meet the proposed Wikipedia:Further reading but perhaps is extraneous according to actual guideline Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading.
  • I have cut down the arms section a little as the description of Danish arms is covered in the linked article and is not necessary here. DrKiernan (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting topic, very well written and seems comprehensive. The sourcing and images look fine. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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/Prince_William,_Duke_of_Gloucester/archive1&oldid=555767252"