Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici/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 Karanacs 02:31, 28 December 2009.

Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici

 * Nominator(s): Jack1755 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it mets the criteria set out in WP:FAC. It has as of 9/12/09 attained GA. Jack1755 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose :Comment: although interesting and well researched, the article needs significant attention before it can be promoted to FA. There are big differences between the GA and FA criteria.
 * (Later) In view of the positive responses to my concerns I have struck the oppose. I hope someone will scrutinise the prose more closely than I have been able to do. I will revisit a little later in the candidature with a view to upgrading to support.
 * Lead: The first couple of sentences should what makes Anna Maria Luisa specifically notable. The most notable things about her are probably that she was the last of the Medicis, a patron of the arts, and that she bequeathed the Medici treasures to the state of Tuscany. These facts should be in the first paragraph, rather than information about her brother and her syphilitic husband. The lead should then be expanded to become a summary of the whole article
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed as to the first paragraph, but I believe that the lead should be expanded. For instance the long and convoluted efforts by Cosimo to secure his daughter's succession, which form the principal substance of the article's story, deserve more in the lead than the brief statement: "Cosimo spent his final years canvassing the European powers to agree to recognise the succession of his daughter, but none did." It is a requirement od WP:LEAD that material is given weight in the lead that broadly approximates to its weight in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. "The Medici were on the verge of extinction: Cosimo III altered the Tuscan laws of succession, in order to allow the accession of a female, his daughter, in 1713; however, despite spending his final years canvassing the European powers to agree to recognise the statute, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, appointed heir in 1735 by the European powers as part of a territorial swap, ascended the throne in her stead".
 * Non-encyclopedic tone: my readthrough revealed a somewhat unencyclopedic tone in places, for example in phrasing such as "fraught with tribulation", "aghast by the thought...", "Cosimo and herself were dumbstruck..." An encyclopedia article, while it need not be devoid of all linguistic colour, should endeavour to express itself generally in neutral language, except for specifically quoted expressions which can be cited.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've fixed the ones I raised (and possibly others) but I still find some of the language choices odd. Why does Gian Gastone "expire"? Why does Violante "peregrinate"? The use of "dire" meaning "urgent" is confusing, since dire can mean other things. What did Charles mean when he told Florence that the Electress's succession was "unquestioned" (which normally means absolutely secure)? Did he mean "out of the question"? Or am I missing a point here somewhere? It may be a good idea to get an univolved editor to check out the prose generally. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's a tad confusing. Charles constantly changed his stance on the issue. "Unquestioned" is supposed to be there; for clarity, I have inserted "reversing his initial policy"... I removed dire; however, I don't see what's unencylopaedic about "peregrinate" and "expire". -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to insert "who constantly changed his stance on the issue". Peregrinate and expire, in the contexts you use them, are literary rather than encyclopedic terms. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous uncited statements, often at paragraph ends. For example: "In fact, contemporaries thought her traits to be a concoction of those of her father and paternal grandmother, Vittoria della Rovere"; "Hereafter, a stalemate existed between them"; "In collaboration with the Holy Roman Emperor and Francis of Lorraine, she willed all the personal property of the Medici's to the Tuscan state, provided that nothing was ever removed from Florence." These are, I stress, examples: please check for others.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still the odd one or two left. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed them this time. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never encountered the word "protocolary". Can't find it in my big dictionary or anywhere else – are you sure it exists?
 * Here is a list of dictionaries that have it @ dictionary.com . However, I removed it anyway. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere you have "emponymous" for "eponymous".
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * MoS: Bolding should not be used for names except in the opening sentence of the article. Why is the title duchesse de Montpensier given in French and italicised, while other titles, e.g. "Grand Duke of Tuscany", "Holy Roman Emperor" etc are in English? "£562 thousand" should be written as £562,000.
 * Fixed the italicised duchess and the bolding.
 * Unfortunately I can't change how 562,000 is written; it is a template. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also a little uncertain about the use of UK CPI statistics to estimate current values of eighteenth century Italian money. Perhaps more thought should be given to this?
 * The currency being converted is GBP. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. My point is that the transactions in question were effected in local currency (florins? ducats?). Did the sources give the original currencies, or did they just quote £4,000 and £500,000? The problem is that by using the British CPI we are applying British inflation rates, which may be wholly irrelevant in this case. There's probably no way round this; updating values of 250 years ago in obsolete currencies in foreign countries is a nightmare, as I discovered when I created a couple of Mozart articles a year or so back. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Acton quotes British crowns and converts it to pounds using the then exchange rate, Strathern simply states the amount in pounds, adding in a footnote that this sum is far larger today; Young, however, gives the original sum in Italian zecchinis, and then says what it was then worth in contemporary pounds. You see, the quotes were from Sir Horace Mann's, British resident in Florence, dispatches back to England. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a dablink that needs fixing; use link in the toolbox top right of this FAC page to identify and fix
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of your alt text is a little overwordy. For example, that for the image of Anna Maria with her husband runs to 80 words and is greatly overdetailed; one of the dogs referred to is completely invisible, to me anyway.
 * LOL. Took me a while to notice it too :). Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to review the oppose when these matters have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good prompt responses: please see what you can do with my remaining concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Two quick things: page ranges should have unspaced endashes (–) and you should either have the location for all the publishers or none of them; I suggest removing the locations all together. Mm40 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done & done, Mm40. Thanks! -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Comments: Jack, I am leaning towards supporting this engaging article, but the prose is a little over the top in places. For example, "She is accredited with acquiring for the Palatine court its regard as an international centre of music." And, "The contract brought unto being that day". The prose is less florid—and better—later in the article. I agree with Brian on a somewhat unencyclopedic tone, I can find few faults if any with the grammar, but I find the prose pompous in places. I admit my Italian is very poor but I can't see any mention of syphilis in reference 3. I have taken the liberty of fixing some dashes, which had not been done, and I deleted a redundant, "in order (to)". I shall be interested to see what other reviewers have to say and will watch this candidature. Graham Colm Talk 16:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed reference number 3. It became misplaced when I re-wrote that sentence a week ago. Replaced "brought unto being" with "created"; and other example with "Because Anna Maria Luisa patronised many musicians, the contemporary Palatine court enjoyed regard as an international centre of music". Thanks for highlighting these issues! -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, but you have only fixed the two examples I gave you. I advise getting an uninvolved editor to go through the article with fresh eyes. Graham Colm Talk 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've recruited one! Thanks again. -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked the article over, and from what I can see all the florid, overblown prose has been removed. I do suggest replacing the current image in the infobox with a more flattering portrait. I fully support the article for FA status.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only two or three changes were made as far as I can tell. Graham Colm Talk 11:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking over the article, Jeanne! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments What makes this reliable? RB88 (T) 04:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://heraldica.org/presentation.htm
 * Fixed. I presume that's a rhetorical question, so I have removed it; however, as I cannot find another source proclaiming the Electoral style "Most Serene Highness", I am forced to ascribe to G.F. Young's simple "Serene Highness" because I believe Acton's interpretation, "Electoral Highness" -- from what I have read elsewhere -- dated. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a rhetorical question. We're always open to being shown that the source is reliable through third-party sources or media companies for example. But, since you've removed it, I'll strike. RB88 (T) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article needs WP:PERSONDATA. Wizardman  17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I can't agree that "all the florid, overblown prose has been removed". The first sentence is "Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici (11 August 1667 – 18 February 1743) was the last scion of the House of Medici." - can't she just be a "member" or "heiress"? Later: "His conduct at these was less than regal: he oft vomited repeatedly into his napkin, belched ...." and many more examples - please don't just change those quoted & say it's fixed. This remains the main problem, but apart from that, it would be good to explain the Palatinate early on, and to give specifics on what art etc she bequeathed. More dates in the lead would make things clearer.  She spent 25 years in the Palatinate, but there is little on her life there. The Acton book was published, per our article, in 1930 in Italy & 1932 in London, not 1980, a point of some relevance to any currency equivalents taken from it.  Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Heiress is misleading. She only inherited allodial possessions, not the Medici Grand Duchy. 2) John, User:Brianboulton and I have gone through the currency issues above. And please enlighten me as to how the incredibly simple word scion is overblown and florid. -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And may I ask where in the WP:MOS and Featured article criteria its says the prose has to be as simple as physically possible? This isn't simple English wikipedia. -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still awaiting your reply. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think every single person who has commented here has mentioned the prose style. You would do well to consider their comments. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made several -- over 20, to be exact -- changes to the article's prose. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eagerly anticipating anyone's reply this decade!! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Anna Maria Luisa was the only daughter of Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and Marguerite Louise d'Orléans, a niece of Louis XIV of France. On her marriage to Elector Johann Wilhelm II, she became Electress Palatine, and through her patronage of musicians the contemporary Palatine court enjoyed international regard as a centre of music. As Johann Wilhelm had syphilis, the union with Anna Maria Luisa produced no offspring, which meant that the Medici were on the verge of extinction. In 1713 Cosimo III altered the Tuscan laws of succession to allow the accession of his daughter, and spent his final years canvassing the European powers to agree to recognise this statute. However in 1735, as part of a territorial arrangement, the European powers appointed Francis Stephen of Lorraine as heir, and he duly ascended the Tuscan throne in her stead. After the death of Johann Wilhelm, Anna Maria Luisa returned to Florence where she lived until her death in 1743. Her remains were interred in the Medicean necropolis, the Basilica of San Lorenzo, Florence."
 * Further comment: I can sympathise with your frustration over the lack of recent comments, but that's Christmas for you (I've been missing for eight days myself). I appreciate that during the last couple of weeks you have made considerable changes to the article's prose, to address my and others' concerns. I'm reading it again, with fresher eyes, and most of it is looking good. However, the lead still looks weak - my early suggestion that it be expanded remains unaddressed. Also the construction of the second paragraph is currently awkward. I suggest a reorganisation of this paragraph along these lines:-

Please consider ways of further strengthening the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.