Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexandra of Denmark


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:15, 11 September 2008.

Alexandra of Denmark

 * Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

Comments
 * Per the MOS, the curly quotes around a block quotation aren't to be used. blockquote works instead, among other choices.
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Curly quotes removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerns 1) Aesthetically speaking, Image:AlexandraGravesend.jpg seems to be a little off in its current location. 2) Lead is too short for the article's size. 3) The chart with children seems out of place and aesthetically unpleasing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Image size reduced. 2. Lead expanded. 3. Chart removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments 1. Princess (later Queen) Mary is referred to as May twice, without explanation of the nickname.  2.  "Remained faithful" has just a touch of paternalistic air that is perhaps not appropriate in the 21st Century.  "is not known to have had any extramarital affairs" might be better.  3.  There's been some discussion that Alexandra tried to influence her husband over the war with Prussia.  Anything in your sources on that?  4.  "Despite now being queen, Alexandra's duties changed little, and she kept many of the same retainers."  The Queen's duties were virtually identical to those of the Princess of Wales?  5.  What about separating her time as Queen Consort from that as Queen Dowager, at least in subsections?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. May changed to Mary throughout. 2. I prefer a short phrase, which has a multiple meaning of loyal, obedient, dutiful and devout, rather than a longer phrase which covers less ground. 3. Attempts to influence foreign policy and anti-German feelings added to the lead and illustrated with other examples. 4. Yes, for consorts. 5. Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as of this version, Comments on this version, Jappalang


 * The changes looks great! Holding off judgment until the images are addressed (below).  Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I like the overall style of this article; it's not as stiff as some articles that pass through here, but there are things you can work on, as the examples given above. I did a little copyediting in the second section as well; nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is "great power" capitalised? It's not in the relevant article, though I note it is in the quotes.
 * Right now, "his distant cousin" is a piped link, with no mention of who his cousin was - I think that the name should be at least mentioned.
 * "At the age of sixteen she was chosen as the future wife of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, the heir of Queen Victoria, and married him eighteen-months later." - First of all, this sentence is very difficult to read. Secondly, why is there a hyphen between "eighteen" and "months".
 * I'm unsure why the first mention of her name in the "Early life" section is bolded.
 * "Princely blood" should probably be the more common phrase "royal blood".
 * "An uneasy peace was agreed" - this doesn't really make sense in its current form. How does one agree a piece? I can't think of a viable rephrasing offhand right now, but I'm sure you could find one.
 * "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife, Louise Rasmussen, his former mistress" - because of what follows, this currently is rather difficult to read. Suggest "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife and former mistress, Louise Rasmussen..."
 * Some overlinking throughout.
 * Generally looks good; as per Jappalang, I'm waiting for the image discussion to finish. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all above! Changes made: . DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Images
 * Although both are listed as in the public domain, why is Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg (upper body portrait) in the article when Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg (full body portrait) serves the same purpose in identifying the subject (especially when the caption for the former image is simply "Alexandra")? There is already a Commons portal to take users to other free images at different angles.
 * All images are listed as in the public domain, either by publishment before 1923 in United States or the Library of Congress's purchase of the rights and stating no known restrictions for the use of the image. However, in the FAC for Voyage of the James Caird, an obstruction was raised in the sense that images stored on the Commons would be deleted if they could not satisfy the public domain requirements in the country of publishing.  Hence, Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg, Image:Alexandra.jpg, and Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg would have to comply with British public domain laws to stay at Commons without dispute.  A solution (as done in Voyage of the James Caird) is to upload these images to Wikipedia (which only needs to comply with US public domain laws).
 * As no one has yet brought up discussion over the images, let me start. Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the only close-up picture.
 * How awkward and confusing. Surely as they are all published outside of the US before 1909, they are all public domain here? Colorising Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg renders it newly copyrightable in the UK, as independent creative talent has been used on it, but Peter has released it under a creative commons license. DrKiernan (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging that we would prefer to have a close-up picture to identify the subject, could we not replace Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg in the infobox with Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg? I think having one picture that best identifies the subject would be better than several in the article.
 * Indeed. The argument raised in the FAC I pointed out was that the opposer refused to support an article in which the images might be deleted.  As the images are stored on the Commons, they would be deleted if no proof can be given on their copyright status in their country of publishing.  Hence, the alternative solution to simply move them to Wikipedia itself.  Let us work on this.  Are the pictures Crown copyrighted?  If so, they are definitely public domain after 50 years since publishing, and we can simply indicate them in the description on the image page.  If not (the photographer simply licensed the photo to the Crown), then we would have to prove the photographer has died more than 70 years ago.  I have asked Elcobbola to help us take a look and determine if we can ignore this (or would have to shift them to Wikipedia).  Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given that a go.
 * On the second point, and using the 1988 law which may or may not apply retrospectively but we'll use it anyway as the most rigid law, if Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg is taken by Alexandra, then copyright is expired as it is more than 70 years since her death. If the copyright of the Downey pictures rests with the company, then copyright is expired since it is more than 70 years since the creation of the images. If the copyright rests with the photographer, who was probably W. E. Downey (who took most of the royal photographs for W. and D. Downey), then he died in 1908, again more than 70 years ago. If they are Crown Copyright, then again the copyright has expired because it's more than 50 years ago. I'm confident that these images would be found to be public domain in the American courts. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The images are PD in the US and UK (i.e. don't need to be moved). As the US is concerned, works published outside the U.S. by foreign nationals are PD if published before 1.1.1923.   In the UK, for photographs with known authors taken before 30 June 1957, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (William Downey died in 1915).  (Although note that, for Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg,  the source indeed contains the date 1893, but does not identify it as a publication date.  How do we know this is the date of publication and not creation? It's PD either way, but the image summary shouldn't misrepresent that date).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the information in the image description to reflect that. I feel all my issues with the images have been resolved.  Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: I'm curious about the reason given for this nomination: "because I'm interested in feedback". Surely, that is what the peer review process is for? An article should come to FAC when the nominator feels that it can be defended against FA criteria, rather than as a means of conducting a general seminar on the article. I raise this point because of recent concerns on the FAC talkpage about overload on the FAC page, shortage of reviewers, and the increasing trend towards building FAs during lengthy FAC review processes, which can sometimes turn tetchy, hostile, and lead to "reviewer burnout". This is not a comment on this article's quality, which on a quick readthrough seems excellent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationale removed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Brief additional comment: Why is the result of WWI included in the lead? Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because in the past, I have received comments along the lines of "What was the result of the war? Why isn't it mentioned?" DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question In the lede, you use "Queen Mother" as a proper noun. I thought that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the only individual given the title formally. Shouldn't it be lower case, since it is descriptive? Second, the major example of Alexandra's attempts to sway others politically is in the Queen section, but it really deals with what she did while Princess of Wales. Shouldn't it be moved? And do we have anything on her attempts (if any) to sway her husband and mother in law during the Prussia/Denmark conflict?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She's "Alexandra the Queen Mother" in the State Prayers, and is referred to in newspapers and parliamentary debates of the time as "The Queen Mother". On the second point, I originally put the example in the Princess section, but I don't think it fits so I moved it. I prefer to place it with similar material rather than break up the flow of the article. On the final point, I've added: To the great irritation of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, Alexandra and Albert Edward supported the Danish side in the war. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.