Talk:Arthur, Prince of Wales/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already had a say at FAC, but I'm definitely happy to take another look now. I doubt I'll finish tonight, though. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here we go-
 * I'm really not sold on the first paragraph. You have an uncited quote, then effectively repeat yourself. "was thus "a living symbol" of the union between the House of Tudor and the House of York ... the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor, as his birth was a symbol of the end of the Wars of the Roses". Finally, you pick out the death of one of his relatives in the war- Richard wasn't even the only great uncle to be killed in battle!
 * I've removed the quote and changed the words so as to avoid repeating myself. It is true that Richard wasn't the only great uncle, but he was the only reigning one; more than that, Richard's death paved the way for Henry's ascension as king.


 * "Henry's quest for a male heir, which ended with six marriages." This is a somewhat contentious claim; were there really six marriages only because of Henry's quest for a male heir? Jane Seymour's death, for instance, was one reason why there were more than three marriages... How about "Henry's quest for a male heirs, which endured over six marriages."
 * Good point, I've changed it.


 * "Born at Saint Swithun's Priory[1] on 20 September 1486 at about 1 am,[2] Arthur was the first child of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.[3] In an effort to strengthen the Tudor claim to the throne and emphasize his family's Welsh ancestry, Henry VII had royal genealogists trace his lineage back to the ancient British rulers and decided on naming his son after the legendary King Arthur. On this occasion, Camelot was identified as present-day Winchester,[4] and Elizabeth was sent to Saint Swithun's Priory (today Winchester Cathedral Priory) in order to give birth there.[5]" This isn't chronological, and so it jars a little.
 * I've put the sentences in chronological order, I hope it flows better now.


 * "he was awarded a household structure by secondment from his father's offices." What does this mean?
 * I've changed the words, maybe it is better understood this way.


 * "After Arthur was appointed Prince of Wales, he was awarded a household structure by secondment from his father's offices.[1] Arthur became Duke of Cornwall at birth.[3]" Again, out of chronological order, and when was he awarded the title of Prince of Wales? You mention it a few lines later, but this all needs to be smoothed out.
 * Done.


 * "by the Lord Mayor of London and at Lambeth by Spanish ambassadors." Surely we know the names of these people?
 * We don't know the names of the Spanish ambassadors, but I've added the name of the Mayor of London.


 * "handsome" Again, we really need to say who said this.
 * Added.


 * "said to be "extremely handsome."" Again, who said this? Also, the punctuation needs to be outside the speech marks.
 * Done, hopefully.


 * "warden of all the marches" If this is a title, it should probably be capitalised?
 * It is a title and it is also capitalised now.


 * "Gruffydd grew quite close to Arthur[30] and was buried in Worcester Cathedral, alongside the Prince's tomb.[31]" Could we perhaps have the year of his death?
 * Added.


 * "(the equivalent of £5 million today)" That'll go out of date- say "£5 million in [year]"
 * Done.


 * "sweetly with quaint harmony."" Punctuation needs to be outside, here
 * " illness, "a malign vapour with proceeded from the air."" Again
 * All full stops outside now.


 * "telling Henry" Asking, surely?
 * Done.


 * "both young enough."" Again
 * "in good hast came" Haste? What does your source say?
 * That was an error on my part, it was "in good hast come", i.e. "have come".


 * "relieved her."" Again
 * "in black."[57]" Again
 * I think I may be going against what I said in the FAC here, but... "Although in the morning following his wedding, Arthur had claimed that he had been "in the midst of Spain" and that marriage was "thirsty work", these claims were dismissed as mere boasts of a boy who did not want others to know of his failure,[1][67] and Catherine maintained the claim that she had married Henry while still a virgin until the day she died.[46]" Surely it was in Henry's interests to demonstrate that Arthur had consummated the marriage?
 * Henry did maintain that the marriage had been consummated. The claims were dismissed by modern historians (which I have added).


 * I don't mind the pop culture section as it is, provided they're all sourced. At FAC, I think people would be keen to see any kind of (sourced) claim about how Arthur has generally been portrayed.

Sources and images seem completely appropriate. A few little bits need smoothing out, but this is generally a very strong article. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looking through again.
 * I appreciate the more chronological approach in the early life section, but I think you need to provide some context. Perhaps open the section with something like "In August 1485, Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, becoming Henry VII, king of England." (Uncontroversial stuff, but a source would also be good.)
 * Sorry for taking so much time to reply, it's been a crazy week. I hope the opening paragraph is alright now.


 * Can I possibly recommend that the section be renamed "Birth and early life"? There's more about the birth/what happened in preparation for his birth than his education.
 * Agreed.


 * "have five more children, of which only three" of whom, surely?
 * Right.


 * "Soon after leaving Henry's bedchamber, Elizabeth collapsed and began to cry, while the ladies sent for the King, who "of true gentle and faithful love, in good hast come and relieved her".[54]" This still doesn't work. There seems to be a tense switch. Hast is present tense.
 * It may be so, but the source clearly says "hast", so it must have been written like that.
 * Look again- I'm not asking you to change the quote, I'm asking you to fit it into the sentence differently. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "these claims were dismissed by modern historians as mere boasts of a boy who did not want others to know of his failure" By "modern historians", I assume you mean 20th/21st century historians? How about "these claims are generally dismissed by modern historians as mere boasts of a boy who did not want others to know of his failure"?
 * Done.


 * I think you've already said to me that Henry claimed that Arthur's marriage was consummated; could we have that in the text?
 * Added.


 * IMDB is not a reliable source.
 * For cast listings, I really believe it is.
 * According to this page, it's "disputed". It's probably best to avoid it, but I'm not going to hold up this the GAC over this issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not fussed for GAC, but for FAC, shouldn't there be a section on his coat of arms?
 * I don't think there is enough information about his coat of arms as to devote an entire section to it, perhaps I could add an image or something. Cheers,  Alex  (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is looking great. A few more tweaks and it'll be a comfortable GA. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope the article is alright now, I've changed the quote and added a citation for the tutors in the lead. Cheers,  Alex  (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. If you're still keen on pursuing FA status, I think some improvement of the pop culture section would be necessary (again, try to cut out IMDB!) and you would probably need to look into a section on his coat of arms; it's not something I find particularly interesting, but there are a lot of people who would likely see that as an essential aspect of the article. Great work- this is a very worthy topic for a GA! J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)