Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George II of Great Britain/archive2


 * 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 Ucucha 14:14, 1 October 2011.

George II of Great Britain

 * Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Former featured article. Before anyone points it out: the article uses Oxford spelling, because Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 is spelled with a z, and a z is perfectly acceptable in British spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated
 * Be consistent in whether you use "quoted in" or "quoted by". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hyphens added. "by" changed to "in". Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments As Dr. Kiernan continues his thankless work of cleaning up the British Royal Family, which is saying something:
 * Lede
 * "first years of his father's British reign," This is a bit awkward.  Perhaps "in the years following his father's succession to the British throne.
 * Changed to "first years of his father's reign as king"
 * I note that you could even say that he was the last British King born outside England. I assume you are doing it so as to say "outside the kingdom", more or less.
 * Yes
 * Is it worth saying something in the lede about his Hanoverian kingdom/reign? Did he rule via viceroy?  Did he spend large amounts of time there?
 * Twelve visits there added
 * I would at least pipe "Catholic claimant" to Bonnie Prince Charlie.
 * It's Charlie's dad who was the claimant -- added
 * "short-temper" I do not pretend to be expert in Britlish, but the hyphen looks mildly odd.  I couldn't tell from a google search.
 * It's hyphenated in my dictionary
 * Early life
 * Perhaps make it clear that the city of Hanover is meant as his birthplace. While of course that was within the country, still that is not clear to the reader without clicking which is meant.
 * Clarified
 * " They probably never saw each other again." As no restriction was placed between Sophia and George, perhaps "Mother and children probably never saw each other again"?
 * Changed
 * "spoke French," perhaps "spoke only French".
 * Added
 * I don't own any of the sources, but I suspect it would sound better if you could say who it was (that is, contemporary observer) who remarked upon George studying his favourite subjects with such passion.
 * Not sure. Probably Toland and Holstein but the biographers are not crystal clear on where they've plucked it from.
 * I don't understand why the first part of the last paragraph is in the past perfect. As this happened when George was 18 or so, it is part of his story and should be told in the ordinary past tense.  Is there anything recorded about what difference this made to George or any reaction from him?  It surely made him a much better matrimonial prospect than prospective ruler of a backwater Northern German electorate?  I note that the negotiations for his bride's hand began in 1702 ... about when Anne took the throne and the idea of these Hanoverians becoming future monarchs was really starting to sink in.
 * Left over from shifting the section earlier -- corrected
 * "secretly and incognito a putative marriage prospect:" While I understand that incognito does not necessarily mean secret (having recently dealt with you with Victoria's journeys as Duchess of Balmoral or whatever it was, which were for sure not secret), consider omitting "secretly and".  Also consider omitting "putative".  I do not think any modifier of "marriage prospect" is really necessary as the term implies uncertainty, but if you must, I suggest "possible".
 * Amended
 * For the sake of continuity, I would mention something about the proposal/acceptance.
 * Added
 * I note that Anne's health declined long before 1714. Perhaps say that she was not expected to live long (though Sophia's predecease came as a major surprise, she was thought to be a hale old lady).
 * Changed to "had declined"
 * " and politicians in England, known as the Whigs," This could lead to the incorrect assumption there were no non-Whig politicians in England.  BTW, as we are post-1707, surely it is Britain?  The transition in the article between use of "England" and "Britain" needs an explanation.
 * Changed and added
 * Consider relabeling "Quarrel with the King" as "Prince of Wales", with perhaps Quarrel titling the first subsection of same.
 * Done

More later. It looks very good, especially as we advance into his kingship, looking ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as usual. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, here's the rest. Nothing major.
 * Resuming
 * Early reign
 * "English populace who considered it proof of the new King's fondness for Britain." The English/British distinction rings oddly here.
 * "Whereas the King" Suggest "Although the King"
 * Changed both the above
 * Family problems
 * "suggestions of a duel between the two kings" This was a serious possibility?
 * There's more about it at wikisource.
 * "he kept Caroline" Perhaps "he had kept Caroline"
 * " She was followed by Amalie von Wallmoden," As mistress or as lady of the bedchamber?
 * Both amended.
 * War and rebellion
 * "Without conferring with his British ministers, George stationed them in Hanover to prevent enemy French troops from marching into the Electorate." Is it worth pointing out that this may have been a breech of the Act of Settlement?
 * I'm not sure it was because Parliament supported the war and agreed to hire the troops for use on the Continent.
 * In the last paragraph, the story of the '45 is interrupted by several sentences dealing with governmental shifts. I would move all that until the end of the paragraph, or possibly make it its own paragraph.
 * Separated
 * " the last pitched battle ever fought on British soil. " I would strike "ever".
 * Done
 * Later life
 * "heir-apparent" Why the hyphen?
 * Left over from a hyphen surplus
 * "Prime Minister Henry Pelham" Why is Pelham linked here and given his full name when he is a last name in the previous paragraph?
 * Link removed
 * Legacy
 * "The asteroid 359 Georgia was named in his honour at the University in 1902. " Even with the Gottingen tie in, this seems a bit out of place.  If you leave it in, it might be helpful to mention (if true) that Gottingen scholars discovered it.

Looks quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The asteroid was not discovered at Gottingen. It was named there during a scientific conference. I didn't have the heart to remove it, but couldn't think of any other way to integrate it better. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments Leaning support, but some issues.
 * Support Concerns addressed, fine article on a king who tends to get a bit sandwiched in between father and grandson.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead: I'd think you'd want to like (O.S) in the lead as well as explain it...
 * I'm pretty sure you're going to have calls to decapitilize "King"... I'm indifferent to it, but there is a vocal group who feel that unless it's directly used as a title, it should be "king".
 * Early reign - explain what civil list is, don't just link it.
 * Early reign - Link for excise bill and court offices?
 * Family problems - link for "piles"?
 * War and rebellion - "George agreed to send 12,000 hired Hessian and Danish mercenaries to Europe, ostensibly to support Maria Theresa, but without conferring with his British ministers, George stationed them in Hanover to prevent enemy French troops from marching into the Electorate." is awkward to me, suggest rephrasing as two sentences.
 * War and rebellion - do we have an article for the custom of purchasing officer positions? If so, we need to link it here somehow... most folks won't realize that for centuries the British Army allowed the purchasing of officerships.
 * War and rebellion - "In July 1745, the Old Pretender's son, Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie..." shouldn't "Young Pretender" be listed here too?
 * I REALLY dislike using the nickname "Bonnie Prince Charlie" instead of "Charles" in the descriptions of the Battle of Culloden - it reads more like a bad romance novel than an encyclopedia article.
 * A bit of overlinking going on... I counted at least a couple of links to William Pitt plus Hanover and others. Make sure you really need to double link things that are linked, this isn't that long of an article. And do we really need links to "pitched battle"? Suggest a thorough going over with an eye to the links.
 * Blech. Can we ditch the "in popular culture" section with the listing of movies? I mean, really, that he was played by someone in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (which was likely a tiny cameo) tells us absolutely nothing about George himself.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Dab's were fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Changes made. I tend not to worry about duplicate links if they're only linked twice and the links are not in the same section. The delinking common terms tool didn't turn anything up. DrKiernan (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments:
 * In "Quarrel with the King" you write "the Waleses left court". I see what you mean, but is this anachronistic?  Or did folks refer to them that way back then.  I understand the problem of writing about people with no last names, but it might be better phrased.
 * I made one minor copyedit (who/whom) but it otherwise looks good. I'll give a closer reading tonight.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "Prince and Princess of Wales". DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It took me longer than I expected to finish reviewing. I don't see anything else that another reviewer hasn't already addressed, so I'll change to support.  Good luck!  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "their childless cousin, Queen Anne": it's certainly not wrong, but I imagine there are a few readers who will misinterpret this as "first cousin"; "relative" doesn't have the same drawback, but it's your call.
 * "George's second cousin once removed, Queen Anne": Okay, I give up ... I'm guessing the common ancestor is the grandparent of one and the great-grandparent of the other, but don't see who it is. I think more readers will understand "the great-granddaughter of George's grandsomething" than "second cousin once removed", but I understand there are formulas to follow here that I'm not up on. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * George I and Anne were second cousins; they were both great-grandchildren of James I. So, Anne's great-grandfather was George II's great-great grandfather making them second cousins once removed. How about?:
 * George was the last British monarch born outside Great Britain. He was born and brought up in Northern Germany. In 1701, his grandmother, Sophia of Hanover, became second-in-line to the British throne after over fifty Catholics higher in line were excluded by the Act of Settlement, which restricted the succession to Protestants. After the deaths of Sophia and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, in 1714, his father George I, Elector of Hanover, inherited the British throne. In the first years of his father's reign as king, George was associated with opposition politicians, until they re-joined the governing party in 1720. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the mention of Sophia is a useful clue, worthy of the lead. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll give you my opinion on dates, but don't take my word for it ... I'm not trained as a historian, my only relevant training is in copyediting, and there's precious little of that. George II seems to be in England for good, except for brief trips where you mention only the month, not the day, starting with the third section of this article, Prince of Wales.  I agree that it's necessary to mention the problem with O.S. vs. N.S. dates prominently, at several points ... but once you've done that, I don't see the upside to listing the N.S. dates from Prince of Wales until you get to 1752, which doesn't arrive until Later life. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it clearer when both are given because then I can clearly see the date. Otherwise, I'm thinking -- is that an Old Style or New Style date? DrKiernan (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I get BritEng capitalization wrong a lot ... nevertheless, I want to mention that in AmEng, I can't see "at Drury Lane theatre" ... I follow that that's not the official name of the theatre, but you'd need either "at the Drury Lane theatre" or "at Drury Lane Theatre", official name or not, in AmEng. Is it common not to require title case when there's no definite article and part of the name is capitalized in BritEng? - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. It's capitalized in the source. DrKiernan (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Amalie von Wallmoden, later Countess of Yarmouth": That's my version, originally it was the same, except that whole phrase was linked. I made the change myself thinking of it as noncontroversial, but just in case anyone disagrees ... generally, links to a person will be a noun phrase, rather than noun/adverb/noun phrase. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * hard of hearing isn't hyphenated in the online Cambridge Dictionary. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "At the age of nearly 77, he had lived longer than any of his predecessors.": Monarchs of England? Kings of England? Including Saxon kings? (doubtful, but I can imagine that some readers will wonder) - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The province of Georgia, founded by royal charter in 1732, is named after George.": Was, I think; the state of Georgia doesn't have much connection, other than inheriting the name.
 * "He was often able to prevent the appointment of ministers or commanders he disliked, or successfully side-lined them into lesser offices." Cambridge says "sideline", and I don't think I'd make it parallel to "was" (past tense), I think I'd shoot for making it parallel to "prevent", so maybe: "or to sideline ..."
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with all the above. I must have had a hyphen moment. Malcolm II of Scotland traditionally lived to the age of 80, so I guess when Van der Kiste says George lived longer than any "previous monarch of England", that is what he meant. So, perhaps my attempt to avoid stepping on sensitive nationalist toes by using "predecessor" was unnecessary? I've added "English", and will wait to see if anyone questions it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support – I have further minor comments to come when time permits (tomorrow I hope) but from a further reading of the article today I am quite certain that none of my forthcoming points will be of sufficient magnitude to affect my support. (I'll add any comments to the article talk page if this review is closed meanwhile.) Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * General
 * "the King" – see Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters – lower case for "the king", though of course ulc for "King George"
 * That guideline has changed since the last time I saw it.


 * Marriage
 * "like he had" – perhaps "as he had"?
 * 22 August/2 September 1705 – I wonder if this is possibly so far from the original mention of OS dates as to need a refresher for the casual reader.
 * "father refused permission for George to join the army" – "him" rather than "George" might make the prose flow better here
 * Quarrel with the King
 * "Southern England" – upper case S needed?
 * "which contributed to the development of a poor relationship between them" – a bit wordy; could this be something like "which soured their relations"?
 * "verbally insulted the Duke" – as opposed to how else?
 * By turning his back on him, which was termed "rumping".

More to come soonest. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Political opposition
 * "Sir Robert Walpole, but in the next section Sir Spencer Compton. Consistency of piping wanted – in my view the Compton style is easier on the reader's eye; the Walpole example rather breaks the flow and is quite jarring.
 * Early reign
 * Arguable how "Hanoverian" Handel was. He wasn't a native, I believe; was he ever a citizen of Hanover?
 * Family problems
 * On my screen (a widish but not huge one) there is a two inch gap of white space between the heading and the start of the text. Rearranging the pictures would fix this, I think.
 * Thanks. Changes made . DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Concluding few comments:
 * Family problems
 * "he left his wife as chair of the regency" – distractingly modern noun: perhaps "he left his wife to chair the regency"?
 * "on the parish" – an explanatory footnote for this phrase would be useful
 * Legacy
 * "no interest in reading personally" – oddly phrased; is the adverb needed at all?
 * "his biographers point out" – tendentious phrase, implying that what they say is necessarily correct
 * Titles and styles
 * Why the rash of italics? See MoS.
 * Image caption
 * The Dettingen one – "envisioned"?
 * General
 * I agree with the comment below about separating the expository footnotes from the ordinary source references: if you want your readers to look at the former you will do better to mark them clearly as worth a look.

This is a very fine article, a credit both to Wikipedia and to its nominator. Tim riley (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is "envisioned" too unfamiliar? I don't oppose changing it to "depicted" or "portrayed". DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Image review. All images are legitimately free (PD or cc-by-sa) and are correctly tagged on Commons. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Spotchecks. I don't have access to most print sources. Since Cannon is available, I checked footnotes 2a, 2b, 52, 94, 130, and 134 (of this version), which use Cannon. I also checked the other online sources available, referenced by footnotes 85, 118 (that was a tricky read!), 140, and 141. In every case, the article's claims were fully backed up by the sources, and there was not even a hint of close paraphrasing. However, Mike Ashley's book is listed as "Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens" at Google Books and Amazon, whereas it is named "British Monarchs" here. Also, why is it not listed in the bibliography? Similarly, why are the Best and Pinches books in the footnotes and not the bibliography? – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "British Monarchs" was the original American title, but it was changed for the British paperback. Changed along with the other books. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: It seems odd to me to have explanatory notes (1, 25, and 33) mixed among the citation footnotes. Have you considered separating these types of notes? – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how to do that. I've just learned! Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article in all aspects. – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.