Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany


 * 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 13:59, 22 December 2007.

Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany

 * check links

OK, this is my first time here, so please be rigorous with the article and gentle with the nominator. I pretty well wrote this myself, over a number of months, and I've developed it about as much as my sources allow. The subject is an interesting figure that gives an insight into the Stuart court in exile. I'm not that familiar with the MOS, so I'm sure there's at very least some polishing I'll need to do as this goes forward.Docg 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: I haven't read the article in depth yet, but from a cursory glance I can see where this may need work.
 * First of all, the lead is far too short and doesn't fully establish Stuart's notability. How did contemporary people view her?  What was her legacy?  Her importance?  Some elaboration, especially regarding her relationship with her father, is needed.
 * The first two headings ("1753-1783" and "1783-1789") are very vague. Take a look at other royal person FAs (like Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough) for an example of how to split sections into appropriate headings and subheadings that directly correlate to the article's subject.
 * The "Legacy" section only has one example, that being Robert Burns' poetry. Are there not other examples to cite?

I hope these help, and good luck. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Unfortunately, some of the areas that seem to need expansion immediately run into sourcing problems. I simply have, and can find, no sources on contemporary views, and no more on her relationship with her father. As fascinating as these questions are, whether information can be found is highly questionable. It did have more descriptive headings, but I was advised to remove them. Open to suggestions here.--Docg 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reordered and renamed the titles, and wrung my sources for a little more detail.--Docg 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think most of the above have now been remedied.--Docg 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a very brief glance. It still needs quite alot of MoS and language work, but this is a minor point, which I may help out with later. My main instant gripe is "created Duchess of Albany" in the lead. You need to make it very clear that this is a Jacobite peerage and not a real one. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any help is appreciated. I'm happy to reconsider the styling in the lead - but we need care here. The term "Jacobite peerage" is an historical fiction and an anachronism, since Charles created this in non other than the "peerage of Scotland" - it is simply that the British State didn't recognise his right to do so, nor the title itself (although at points other states did recognise the Stuarts' right to ennoble - but that's difficult to pin down). That's why I stated "styled" with a qualifying footnote explaining at first mention. I'd hate to have to fully explain this in the lead: would repeating the footnote reference at second mention satisfy your concerns. We could put "created" in scare quotes - but that looks awful.--Docg 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the footnote now, I missed that earlier during my brief scan. I'm going to have to put in more effort and take a closer look before making further comments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I see you changed the image sizes back. The Manual of Style indicates that specifying the size of a thumbnail image is unnecessary, unless there are overriding considerations. I'm not complaining—I'm just explaining that's why I changed them earlier! DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the work you've done on this, both stylistically and in adding to the research. Much obliged to you. As for the images, I guess it's personal preference; MOS says "unnecessary" rather than disallowed. I think the sized images enhance readability in this case. However, I won't go to the stake for it if there's consensus otherwise.--Docg 10:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read MOS on en dashes in ranges (a section title and page ranges in the Ref section. Tony   (talk)  16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've corrected those. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much obliged - thanks.--Docg 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please complete the websources to agree with WP:CITE/ES, example: Descendants of Bonnie Prince Charlie, has no publisher, last access date, etc.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't find the publisher information, but the source has been fixed. -- DarkFalls talk 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, I think I've fixed the remaining web cites with all available info.--Docg 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice interesting page. Meets all criteria. Giano (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good stuff there, Doc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Notes: Are phrases like these (... with the 7 year old Charlotte ... married the 19 year old Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern ... ) missing hyphens?  See MOS:CAPS ( ...  with legends such as "SPES TAMEN EST UNA" (there is one hope).)   See WP:MOSNUM (Charlotte survived her father by only twenty-two months, ... ) regarding spelling out vs. digits for numbers greater than 10.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tweeking this now - fixing hyphens and numbers. I'm getting to hate the MOS - the capitalised Latin was taken from a Cambridge University Press publication - so I trusted that would be good enough.--Docg 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be capped, please leave it; it was only a question :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is OK. I'll follow the house-style. I think I've fixed the other points, my numbers were certainly inconsistent. Thanks for spotting that.--Docg 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never been the grammar expert, so I could be wrong, but should it be seven-year-old on the hyphenation? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea. I'll page for a pedant on IRC :) --Docg 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No urgency; it's a very minor point :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's a distraction from our usual conspiracies to block FA writers ;) --Docg 22:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.