Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery


 * 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 01:10, 7 July 2007.

Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery
Not a self-nom. I'm nominating Giano's last completed article. This beautiful page is by far the most comprehensive biography of Lady Rosebery, political hostess and schemer, on the Internet or anywhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC).


 * An excellent article, overall, but there are a few minor points I'd like to see addressed:
 * I think the quotes needn't be italicized at all; but, if they are, this should be done consistently. As it is, some are in italics while others are not.
 * When the Cheddington School is being discussed, is the intended word "cypher", or is "cyper" an actual term that I'm unfamiliar with?
 * The citation of letters in the notes seems to have been condensed to an overly brief form; I'd suggest expanding, say, "a letter from Gladstone to Lord Grenville 13 September 1880" to "a letter from Gladstone to Lord Grenville dated 13 September 1880". Is there some reason why the dates aren't linked in those cases?
 * Remarks such as "The present chairman of Sotheby's is Lady Rosebery's great grandson Harry Dalmeny" are likely to become outdated rather rapidly; if they're to be retained at all, I suggest making the date explicit ("As of 2007, the chairman...").
 * Kirill 18:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Addressed, except the citation of letters, which seems purely a matter of taste. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC).


 * I still think the current form is so clumsy as to verge on the incorrect—at the least, there should be a comma before the date—but it may well be a matter of taste. In any case, I think I can comfortably support this now. Kirill 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kirill. Giano 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could do with a prose read - will try to oblige. Also, ref 14 (the exchange convertor) is already out of date. The Land 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The exchange converter has gone! - I have a run through the prose - please see what you think now. Giano 12:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - still not 100% convinced about the way some of the paragraphs work, but I think that's a matter of taste. I quite liked the exchange convertor! There is an updated version of that site somwhere. The Land 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks promising, but I support, but typos and unnecessarily flowery language in many spots; issues from the trivial to the not-so-trivial. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * leaving her husband to achieve the political destiny which she had plotted alone. - leaving her husband alone to ..., surely. Otherwise it seems that she had plotted alone.
 * ''From the research, I rather think she did plot alone. His biographers suggest he was idle and aloof and not much interested. Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Er... this very article says it was originally his idea. "his three ambitions: to marry an heiress, win the Epsom Derby, and become Prime Minister". Please look again at changing it to "leaving her husband alone", that does seem to be more in the vein of the whole article. I feel silly to argue with the guy who wrote the article about what he meant, but in this case, this really does seem to be the point.
 * To be honest, having read all his biographies from beginning to end I think he was far too lazy, egocentric and neurotic to seriously want to be Prime Minister, and I personally doubt that legend of his ambitions, I suspect they came about much later, Which is why I have full referenced and explained them and left the reader to draw their own conclusions. I originally researched to do a page on him, but found him objectionable and his little researched wife more interesting. I can't say that in the page, nor I hope is their any of my opinions or POV. The page toes the officially accepted line that he was a great man, however, the more one learns about her and his treatment of her the less great he becomes. I hope one day some author really does do a great biography of her, I suspect her diaries atc and some real own research would shed a very different light on her "great" husband. So, I do prefer the phrasing as it is for that reason. Giano 16:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Accepting.
 * Meyer's infant daughter, Hannah, laid the foundation stone aged just six months - surely not! A 6 month old child laid a foundation stone? The future Arnold Schwarzenneger, perhaps...
 * She was indeed 6 months old! Precocious and irritating what rich parents do with their kids. As when ERII lays a foundation stone today, she only touches it with a trowel, she does not manually mix the cement. Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you rephrase a bit so it says that, then? "participated in laying" or "attended the laying of" or something? Frankly, at 6 months old, it's hard to believe she could even intentionally touch a trowel to cement.
 * It now has a footnote reffing the fact that she was 6 months old, otherwise I expect people will keep challenging the fact and an assumption from me that she was not physically brick laying. Giano 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She was indulged by both parents[5] and her formal education was neglected[6] in favour of music - move the refs to the end of the sentence
 * Done Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A cousin who seems to have disliked her claims - commas before who and after her, please
 * Done Giano 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * an income of £30,000 a year. (In 2005 this would be worth £1,794,456. - that doesn't sound like he was a pauper himself. If the point is supposed to be that she was far richer, please give numbers for her estate/dowry as well.
 * The Rothschilds do not disclose their finances, there is only ever speculation. I have read wildly differing figures given. All agree she was one of the richest (some say the richest) so I think we can assume she was richer than him. Incidentally I have seen written that some Dukes at that time had an income of £70,000 a year.  I think we just have to agree he was rich, but not as rich as her. I think I will remove the calculator, as I'm not that happy with the figures it gives anyway Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any figures about the size of her part? Even an estimate with some actual numbers it would be useful. I won't oppose over this, but it would seem to be important to the article, considering it was possibly the most important reason for her marriage, which was clearly the most important event in her life.
 * I have found some figures with a rekiable ref. and inserted them. Giano 07:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "including a third one not mentioned by the Jewish chronicle" - if they didn't mention it, why is it in this article?
 * Removed phrase, I'm not sure why it was there either. Giano 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. Neither the third phrase, or the phrase about the third phrase.
 * Ref to third phrase now gone - it can't have save d properly first time Giano 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was unclear. The Jewish Chronicle wrote two lines from the Talmud, and you quote those. Fine. Then you give a basically equivalent translation, with only slight differences? Why, what's the point of giving almost but not quite the same text twice? And of three lines instead of two; why add in the third? Thanks!
 * "such was the prominence of her bridegroom that no male member of the de Rothschild family attended the ceremonies" - needs clarification. Did they stay away to demonstrate disapproval of her marrying a non-jew? If so, what does his prominence have to do with it? "You must marry a Jew ... unless he's a nobody, then it would be all right."? Did they stay away to avoid compromising him before his peers (the Peers)? "Oh God, he's marrying a Jew ... but since her family didn't show up at the wedding it must be all right."? What was the point here?
 * I think the point is explained in the text, I have just emphasised it further, He was prominent - publicity - the fact he was a non-jew would make the headlines - they had to be seen to disapprove - it could not be swept under the carpet, as had happened when members of the family had married less prominent men. Giano 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Better, but can you add something like "... in order to publically show their disapproval"? Sorry, I'm not as good as reading between the lines as most people who read about Victorian society probably are, and I would prefer things to be spelled out even more.
 * Made even more obvious that they were showing dissaproval. Giano 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the Prince of Wales - a wikilink to the specific PoW would not be amiss here.
 * He is already linked to twice, I think 3x would be excessive. Giano 11:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Accepted.
 * nervous breakdown[46]) - move ref behind parentheses
 * Done. Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "I could never be nervous at his making a speech the audience show him great affection." - ungrammatical; are you sure this is the exact quote?
 * Yep, she was not particularly well educated as the article says - I'll add (sic). Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * was to become her raison d'être[30] - needs. a. full. stop.
 * "lady Rosebery" - L
 * Fixed Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Disrali - e
 * Fixed Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lord Hartington, the immensely influential - please wikilink here, the earlier one is far away and in a different context
 * Now linked. Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Involvement in a divorce at all was in the 19th century social suicide - Overly complex. Suggest: Any involvement in a divorce was social suicide ...
 * I think it it needs the date reference to keep it in context. It is not social suicide today. Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Accepted
 * giving such lurid details that the seemingly puritanical society of the day was shocked to its roots. - shorten. ... giving lurid details.
 * more shockingly still, - leave out the editorial comments, the facts are lurid enough
 * Fixed Giano 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In his futile quest to exonerate himself he levelled the charge... - Suggest: He charged... Same info, much shorter.
 * Phrase now altered, see below. Giano 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How did he charge? In a letter to the Times, in a speech to the House of Lords, how?
 * Now explained and reffed Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This was London "drawing room" gossip at the time. - meaning that it was gossip before he formally charged, or only after his charge? In fact, it might be worth while dumping this whole sentence; a lurid charge against a candidate for prime minister is clearly a notable major political scandal, it doesn't need to be specified that it was drawing room gossip rather than bar room gossip or gossip.
 * re-phrased and explained it was a whispering campaigne. Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, but this sentence is now hard to understand: "An outraged Rosebery denied all on his wife's behalf,[72] while in December 1885 Lady Rosebery's only response on being told of Virginia Crawford's confessions was:"
 * Oh I think that says far more than I ever could! Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * to care for their, often large, families - unnecessary, commas,
 * Fixed Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * causing charges of anti-Semitism to be levelled against him - by whom? The charities involved, his political enemies, uninvolved parties? Where? In Jewish newspapers, mainstream newspapers, speeches to the House?
 * Clarified in footnote and reference. Giano 11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks.
 * the Oral Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb. - this paragraph then describes schools for children. Were they specifically or solely for deaf and dumb children?
 * No idea, there is no reference book or complete bio published anywhere on this woman. The only reference to her charity work is in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and that is all the information it contains.  I don't think the word school is mentioned anywhere. Presumably it was a teaching method to a group whose education before had been largely ignored.  I'm not prepared to speculate without a reference to back me up Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Cheddington school at least is for ordinary children, so I suspect our implication that these were schools for deaf and dumb children is incorrect. Especially since the Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't mention the schools. We should rephrase so we don't imply this.
 * No I don't think it is implying schools. Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * cyper - what?
 * ''That was a simple typo for cypher. Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some short quotations are in italics: "There is nothing I can give him," "visiting them", "thoughtful.", some not: "she had cut her spurs.", "disliked hard work". Manual_of_Style says not.
 * Is this the same as Kyril's point? Which is fixed - or are you saying none of them should be in italics? Giano 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, on both counts, I'm afraid. Or, if you can provide a style reference that says that quotations should be in quotes and italics, then I'll ignore what our MOS says. I'm not much of a style expert myself, I have to go by guides.
 * Of Hannah, Countess of Rosebery's, fabulous houses, - awkward. Rephrase, or just strike those words, and start with "The lease on ..."
 * Removed fabulous _ I think the paragraph dealing with the houses needs to be introduced as such Giano 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically the following year the year - department of redundancy department
 * Fixed. Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally cataloging the collection, and prophetically writing in the preface "...." - Make into a complete sentence, please
 * Fixed Giano 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "She personally catalogued and prophetically written" ? wrote, I think.
 * Oh, heck. It's faster to do it myself.
 * "Save Mentmore" group ... Sotheby's - needs a citation. [98] is a footnote, but isn't a citation.
 * Fixed Giano 10:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't see a citation.
 * What do you want to be proved that the group existed? Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Well, yes. That there was such a group, that there was such an auction, etc.
 * Ref now to the book by the group about the group. I think the sale catalogue which references the sale is about as good as proof as is obtainable. Sotheby's are quite a well known firm in Britain. Giano 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You cite Jewish Encyclopedia as a reference. That's a rather large reference. Can you be a bit more specific as to the article(s) involved?
 * I don't understand your point, the reference clearly states it is her entry under "ROSEBERY, HANNAH, COUNTESS OF" Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the reference under the References section. :-) That just says Jewish Encyclopedia. Can it say "Rosebery, Hannah, Countess of" in the Jewish Encyclopedia?
 * It now links directly to her page at the Encycopedia and the foot note refers to the link in the reference. Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * accessed 20th October 2006 (and similar notes) - please format and wikilink per WP:DATE
 * ''Not sure you are correct there - don't only important and very relevant dates have to be linked Giano 11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's an unfortunate abuse of wikilinks, but currently the only way we can get user's date format preferences to work, is to wikilink all dates including a month and a day. And leave off the th's. It's a hack, but it's a hack enshrined in our official style guide. :-)
 * Oh, heck. I did it myself. You owe me a plugged nickel. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Philanthropy section - first, it seems awkwardly stuck in between two chronological sections (Politics and Death and legacy) that would otherwise flow nicely (the last sentence of Politics is a direct reference to her death). Second, there's barely a single date in the section! When was she President of Scottish Home Industries, when did Queen Vic appoint her, when did she found the Club, etc?
 * This is because there is nothing at all written anywhere other than that which is listed in her entry at the Jewish encyclopedia - and that information is now incorporated here. I'm afraid there are no dates, I have looked and researched for them, and they are not there.  That is in fact the reason this page took so long to complete.  To leave out the philanthropy section would be to omit an important part of her life - to include demonstrates how little information has been published concerning her. Giano 09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Death and legacy section - repeat the wikilinks to the children, the earlier ones are far away
 * I have re-linked - though I thought they were only supposed to be linked once Giano 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once per section or screenful. Manual of Style (links)
 * by no less a person than Queen Victoria - by Queen Victoria
 * "No less" removed Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * while one could be ... one did not become too close, and one certainly did not marry them - sentence could come from a Wilde play. Rephrase  please.
 * Done Giano 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They considered themselves the equals of royalty,[4]. Regardless of whether this was strictly true or not - first, remove the comma, and move the ref after the period. Second, we're either saying it is true, and we should remove the "Regardless...or not bit" or we're saying it's not necessarily true, and should rephrase the first sentence so it doesn't claim so outright (and probably remove the second bit anyway).
 * I don't really get what you are saying here, can you fix it yourself. On the "regardless" matter. They are firmly referenced as "considering themselves the equivalent of Royalty" I personally think "they" is a huge amount of people - and doubt they all did, which is why I have inserted the "regardless". If you choose to take the "regardless of whether they did" out - I won't quibble - but that is why I put it in Giano 07:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone fixed so it makes sense now: "Ferguson states X. Whether or not X was true, ..." It used to say: "X (was true). Whether or not X was true, ..."
 * an unremarkable term of office marred by problems and difficulties. - if it was unremarkable, how was it marred by problems?
 * The problem here is how far to go into Lord Rosebery - (he does have his own page) there is quite a lot of info given about his ministries, but it should be remembered all this happened after the subject's death. It would be wrong though not to mention that his premiership was beset by problems - I think one has to leave some things to be researched which are off subject. I will remove unremarkableGiano 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His final years were marred by illhealth - there's marred again, can we find a different word? Also, space between ill and health.
 * Done Giano 07:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Marred is changed to blighted. Giano 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Roseberry's article refers to this one by saying: "A fuller assesment of their relationship can be found by clicking here." I guess that's not technically a flaw in this article...
 * That page is nothing to do with me, and seems to have been written after this article using information taken from this page but without the references. Si I don't think I had better comment on it. Giano 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see I've repeated several of Kirill's points. Sorry, not intentional. Put it down to great reviewers nitpicking alike or something... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have addressed many of your points, can you strike out any you are now happy with, as it is getting a little hard to see what is addressed and what is not. Thanks Giano 07:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You got most (though a few you claimed to get, but didn't!). Assuming you'll fix most of the remainder, changing opinion to I support, but. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not wild about "such standing that he almost eclipsed royalty", which strikes me as unencyclopedic and a little off-topic. (This is about her, not her father.)  semper fictilis 03:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread, it refers to her husband not her father. Regarding the term - the family are well quoted and referenced as almost eclipsing Royalty. That is not said about many people, so that this daughter of a "noveau" Jewish family (both adjectives were enought to banish a person from the highest echelons of European high society) was married to such a man is I think is very important indeed. Giano 07:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: A splendid article, which I think could be improved by some tweaks. But what's this with (just to take one example) "Crewe, Marquess of (1931). Lord Rosebery. London: John Murray. ISBN N/A ." (underline added)? It's not a matter of the availability of the ISBN for this book: SBNs let alone ISBNs hadn't even been dreamt of back then, as any fule kno. First I thought that this was an insignificant slip; later I noticed more. Is this some sort of private joke? -- Hoary 12:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hoary - I always understood that N/A stood for "not applicable". I was just filling in the citing book format template. Shall I remove it completely? As for the tweaks you will have to give me at least a hint. Giano 13:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, right, not applicable. But of course it's not applicable. And even where the non-applicability isn't a matter of course, there's no reason to tell people that the ISBN isn't applicable: just don't provide it. Meanwhile, the tweaks: I'm making them, gradually; feel free to revert them! -- Hoary 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you put the {{inuse} template on then as their seem to be a lot of people popping in and out of there Giano 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made all the tweaks, so my earlier minigripes have evaporated. -- Hoary 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Linking of dates. Mouse, why are you insisting that a beautiful article such as this be spattered with blue dates? Because of the failure of the WikiMedia techs to fix the glitch that has conflated the autoformatting and linking processes, I'm now advising people not to link even full dates. Make them fix it. 73 of us in a signed petition attempted to have it fixed late last year, without opposition, but it was like trying to push the moon out of orbit. Giano and Bishonen, nicely done here. Could do with a final run-through to spot the few remaining little things, that's all. I support. Tony 12:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony. I wish I could take some of the credit, but I'm only the nominator and fiddler-about with dots and dabs. This is Giano's work. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks Tony. I always especially appreciate a support from you, can you give me a clue as to "few remaining little things" I have read it through so often my eyes are seeing only what they want to see. Giano 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll run through it in a few days' time (lots of work pressure right now). I'm sure I won't find much. Tony 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Featured article criteria #2 starts with "It complies with the manual of style". WP:DATE is part of the manual of style. There are not many unambiguous items in the featured article criteria, this is one of the few. You'll notice I was one of the 73 signing that petition, but the developers didn't do it. We can't just pretend they did. You're arguing that it shouldn't be done because of your personal aesthetics should override a widely agreed upon guideline, and the only way to implement a useful feature. "The rules don't apply to me" is hardly what should serve as an example of the best the project can do. All the other FAs do it, there hasn't been any argument why this one is so different. Similarly, the article is spattered with blue words, why don't you mind those so much? Seems to be your personal taste. Get the developers to change the feature, get consensus to change the Manual of style, or put in the blue dates. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh heck. This is a good article and deserves passing. Not to mention that Giano has been regularly roasted by the community in other contexts, and needs to be basted so he doesn't burn. :-) Most of the dates were wikilinked already (though I notice Tony didn't object to those!), I wikilinked the twenty or so that weren't myself. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support Mouse. I am though completely with Tony on this and just don't see the point or relevance to the article. However neither the time not the place.  I just wish she would get some more supports :-(  Giano 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support an enjoyable read and impeccable choice of quotes as usual. I found the start of second to last paragraph (on the disposal of the houses) a little tough going and notice somebody else left a question hidden in the comments. Who is the them there, and how did surrendering the lease help? Yomangani talk 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yomangani. You are right, I have altered the phrasing there slightly . I wrote that section because I always like to know what happened afterwards and complete the story, and always assume others do too - sort of "après moi le déluge" and brings the history up to date. Giano 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Yomangani talk 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. Two footnotes are uncompleted:  current note 9. ^ McKinstry, page number wanting; current note 87. ^ Ferguson (direct quote, missing page number).  Publishers are missing on some of the final sources listed under References.  Also, see WP:MOS regarding "Quotations in italics".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, considering the recent fuss about Fair Use, you might need to re-evaluate Image:Mentmore towers from below.jpg. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to support last night, but to mention that I agreed that image should be removed, as it seemed to be decorative and not essential to our understanding of the subject of our article. I see it has now been replaced by a free image. ElinorD (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- a really nice page Giano -- well done. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Grapes - it's about time we had another FA from you! Giano 07:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: One section is titled "Controversy and betrothal". I suppose it was a controversy, but for me the WP section title "controversy" is degraded by gossipmongering editors' lipsmacking chrestomathies of innuendo and allegations of this or that starlet's alleged sexual dalliances and the like. What's the controversy here about? If her social standing, then how about "Social standing and betrothal"? -- Hoary 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Her betrothal was contraversial, especially among the elders of the Jewish faith, we can change it just to betrothal if you like, but if you think about it - the Jewish papers were publishing articles condemning the marriage so I suppose it was a true controversy.  Especially by the standards of the day when the press was usually quite psychophantic to these people. Giano 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK, but if the controversy was just about the betrothal, why indeed not title this simply "Betrothal"? (Mm, and "psychophantic": I suspect that this was just a slip of the digits, but it's a fine word for the psychopathological sycophancy of certain strata of British society and one I shall find useful.) -- Hoary 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All right then! -- Hoary 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support this bodacious bio. -- Hoary 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hoary!:-) Giano 07:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, well-written and judicious in its use of detail. A few quibbles. Niall Ferguson's book is fine to cite in support of the Rothschild's status, but the claim is uncontroversial and I wouldn't bother referring to him by name in the main article (better used for a specific theory or controversial belief linked to someone). This phrase from the intro, Bewildered and without her support, his premiership of Great Britain was shambolic dangles, does it not? I agree with Tony that there are a couple of other little copy-edits that might be advisable; since he notes he will pass through it, that's enough for me: Support. Eusebeus 10:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry, I think I must have been too mesmerized by "shambolic" to spot the dangling modifier. Fixed. Bishonen | talk 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Hmmm, isn't the phrase "Aged 17, her Rothschild relations noted her poise and competence when hosting a large house party at Mentmore for the Prince of Wales" a bit dangly as well? Who was seventeen? Hannah, or her relations? Personally, I'd get rid of every single use of "aged 22", "aged 27", "aged 34", etc., replacing the dangly one(s) with "when she was", and replacing the others with "at the age of". Somehow, the constant (or even infrequent) use of "aged" sounds just not quite right to me. I also think (and this is just nitpicking) that 17 should be seventeen. ElinorD (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. The fair use image is gone, and I'm sure Giano or Bishonen (where's Bishzilla?) will remove the word "aged", which is slightly irritating me. (See how easily I'm irritated!) Even if they don't, I couldn't possibly oppose over something like that. Fantastic article. Well done! ElinorD (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elinor, try this . The photograph of Mentmore is there because I want to illustrate the wealth and almost unreal life that she lead as a child, that a family could throw up up a house like that as recently as 1851 is pretty amazing, and then live in it surrounded by one of Britain's greatest art collections all assembled just to furnish it, I think is phenomenal. Funnily enough there is a reference to its dispersal in this morning's Times saying what a huge loss to the nation it was and how it must never be allowed to happen again. Giano 12:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will gladly support this article now that all outstanding issues have been addressed. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to get OCD on you for a second, but is there any reason that all the quotations – inline, English-language quotations – are in italics? In addition, could you translate the quote "Le Jew est fait, rien ne vas plus" in parentheses in the article? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it this way because there are a great many quotes, and I wanted it to be very easily differentiated between my text and quotes. I believe that contemporary quotes give a better insight into a person than any modern text - basically I merely collect quotes and place them within context to make a biography. Don't forget that Wikipedia does not allow us as authors to draw anything but the most obvious conclusions, therefore the placing of quotes can lead a reader to a conclusion that we can not, thus it is imperative that the quotes are very obvious indeed so that the reader can see he is not being led or misled. Giano 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still think the French quote should be translated in the article. Not everyone speaks French. Other than that, I support: comprehensive and well-written. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. You are correct it should be translated, and perhaps it can be. The reason I am hesitant (I deliberately tried to ignore your question) to do it myself is that, I think, it is not only  idiomatic but also  combined with sarcasm, so I suspect any one persons translation could be challenged. To leave the quote out of the article would be criminal - to translate it, as I think Lord Rosebery meant it would be dangerously misleading. My personal view is that it was a very anti-Semitic remark indeed, but I could be wrong,  and it was just mildly anti-Semitic. I speak passable French but I'm not Jewish I don't want top be the one to put the wiki-definite interpretation on it.  It should be there so students researching are aware of it, and can make of it what they will. Giano 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a footnote at the phrase, see if it works for you, please, zafiroblue05. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Yep, it makes sense to me now. :-) The footnote is all that's needed. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a most obvious FA if ever I saw one. Rebecca 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are all of the images terrible looking? commons:Image:Dalmenyhouse.jpg was turned into Image:Dalmenyhouselightened.gif. 1995 called, it wants its gifs back. Several of the images are also crooked and have shadows where they were not scanned flat, which is generally fixable but working from low quality gifs is not my idea of a good use of time. It would also be preferrable to have the source of the images, even if they are all PD and fall under Bridgeman.
 * Look fine to me. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They seriously look fine to you? An image with 75631 unique colours out of a possible 2^24 colours was changed to a gif that only supports a 256 colour pallete and is only using 63 colours.  Even the thumbnail looks ugly and it is marked as public domain when you derived it from a cc-by-sa/gfdl image.  GIF should not be used for photographic works and it does not even do greyscale well.  Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in your image caption: your eample is a small detail from a larger picture, at the resolution required for the article the lightened version is better because we can at least see what the house looks like which is slightly more important than the sky which most people know is blue! and the pixels at the resolurton required for the page are not visible. This is about education not winning a photographic competition. Giano 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is trivial to make the image more bright (although I do not think it needs it) without converting it to such an inferior image format. It is especially important to keep images at the best quality possible as with some formats as many changes to the image will require to be be recompressed and are likely to introduce more artefacts.  Further, the dithering and loss of quality if noticable even in the thumbnail as I said earlier.  Surely you would object if someone took your carefully written prose and riddled it with misspellings and other errors; this is no different.
 * If you are not interested in my advice or help just say so and I will go away. There are certainly far worse articles that are featured than this one.  Kotepho 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the back handed complement. I am not disinterested in your advice but I feel you are nit-picking on prose which is perfectly clear. It may not be clean and sterile prose but the meaning is clear. My aim is to get over as many facts as possible without doing so in a robotic clinical way. My goal is to relate the subjects history in an informative but interesting and readable fashion.  I am aware we have many younger readers and people who have little real interest in such subjects, hence I want to make it interesting and colourful perhaps even a little fun to read - hence the "toothache caption" and the "3 in a bed" caption - there is a fine tightrope between encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic and I like to think I tread it quite well. My style of writing is obviously very dissimilar to yours and that is what makes Wikipedia more interesting every page is different. I cannot completely alter my style of prose nor do I wish too.  If that means you objecting to this page then so be it. Where possible I have addressed your concerns, the remainder I just do not agree with. Sorry. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the 3rd sentence, punctuation outside of quotation marks while the dominating style seem to be inside in this article (27 to 1).
 * Please explain more clearly what you mean. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He means this is the one place in the article where you had "quote". rather than "quote." I took the liberty of fixing it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

footnote 55 does not have an ending quotation mark
 * Why should it? Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The number changed in the mean time, it is the sentence starting with "Rosebery's secretary Thomas Gilmour noted..." I'll fix it myself if AnonEMouse didn't get it already. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

image caption on RoseBeryMillais.gif, syntax error, unmatched "
 * So what? Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He means you had a single hanging " mark somewhere. Liberty fixed likewise. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fixed. It was "Quote"[1]" but "quote2"[2]Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Durdans" is in quotes and not italicized, The Zenaide is italicized and not in quotes... pick a way already
 * Fixed. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Durdans" is still not consistent. "The Durdans" once and then later The Durdans", I would just fix it but I don't know which you prefer, but it really isn't important. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer "The Durdans" I thought that was how it was, if you can see another that is missed please fix it, if I see I will. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Under Marriage, the paragraph about where they lived at various times is unclear. In between all of the peroids? only some of them? where were they on the in between days where they were not at the Durdans? In the previous paragraph it was said they stayed in London and now they stay in various places with no shift in time or context? The last sentence describes one of the houses, not where they lived. Gainsboroughs wikilinks to a dab page, probably means Thomas Gainsborough... the footnote says the source attributes the quote to someone... what quote? If it isn't a quote, "just a few paintings by Gainsborough and Watteau." would be clearer without having to rely on the wikilinks to show what you mean. Could all of this be better organized with a paragraph about each of the houses or locations they stayed at? I have no idea what beau monde is and it is a red link. It at least sounds French, shouldn't it be in italics? Does it carry a meaning that is not adequately phrased as "the elite" or "high society"?
 * Fixed. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gainsborough still linked to a dab page until I just changed it. James's description still seems like a quote without being a quote and I think it could be better organized, but there is not much to work with and it is minor anyways. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The footnote about the French pun, double opening quotation marks and the French should be italicized throughout. The same article is linked twice and the thus explained in the article article is less than ideal
 * That is because it is, and was meant to be "double entendre" It would be POV to even attempt further explanation. While it is clear Rosebery was being derogatory the "double entendre" and ambiguity was part of his wit and sarcasm which as I explain "must have been disconcerting for the child's very Jewish mother". I could hazzard a very good guess at what he meantm but I am certainly not going to. People must make their own conclusions, the guidance is given. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Took one last liberty to address double link by shortening without, I hope, removing content. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It used to say An untranslatable bilingual pun on the French Rouge et Noir phrase ""Le jeu est fait, rien ne va plus"; literally, "the game [or in this case, the Jew] has been made, nothing more can be done." The use of the gaming phrase is explained thus in the Trente et Quarante article: "The dealer ... invites the players to stake with the formula, 'Messieurs, faites vos jeux!' After a pause he exclaims 'Le jeu est fait, rien ne va plus!' after which no stake can be made." The same article was linked twice in the same footnote, the phrase ""Le jeu instead of the phrase "Le jeu, and none of the French is in italics per WP:MOS and style guides I am familiar with, and it was also self-referential (explained thus in the Trente et Quarante article).  It fixed except for the French in italics, but if you think it is better not to have foreign language words and phrases not in italics but quotes in quotation marks and italics, fine. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the lead, "Yet his..." I find it odd to refer to the subject of the article as someone's wife. Also, it seems to say "the majority of historians say X" and then "this is how it really is". To me this looks like either asserting a minority opinion of historians as the correct view or your opinion--both of these are problematic. The parenthetical comment suffers much of the same problem as it looks largely editorial.
 * No it is pointing pout the subject is little known. We don't want he a candidate for deletion do we? Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Yet his Jewish wife..." is odd to me, but the rest of this comment was much more important. You say she is largely ignored by historians and often regarded as only being a bag of money. The next sentence says that they are all wrong.  Who asserts this?  Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole page is devoted to explaining why. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Having firmly assisted and supported her husband on the path to political greatness, she suddenly died in 1890, aged 39, leaving her husband to achieve, bewildered and without her support, the political destiny which she had plotted alone." There is much good to be said about writing in ways where ideas are not constantly interrupted by clauses. "She firmly assisted and supported her husband on a path to political greatness until she suddenly died/died suddenly in 1890 at the age of 39/, aged 39. Then, he went on to achieve the political destiny which she alone had plotted." The formulation of this sentence in my mind is more apt for "Having been raised on a farm, she was used to getting up at the crack of dawn." or such where there is a clear connection. If it wasn't his idea to be Prime Minister, why is she 'assisting' and 'supporting'? Was it her plan that he should reach office, or that he should reach office and fail (his ultimate destiny)? "he wandered directionless and exceedingly eccentric" he wandered (directionlessly and eccentricly) or he (wandered without direction) and (became/grew exceedingly eccentric)?
 * The passage is perfectly clear. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be clear, but it is cumbersome to me and can be read multiple ways. It only becomes clear what is meant by reading the rest of the article, but the lead should largely be able to stand on its own.  Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead can stand on its own, but it is also meant to introduce the tone and content of the whole page - which it does. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"As an only child growing up in what were, in all but name, palaces, her childhood appears to have been quite lonely." - inappropriate tone
 * I don't agree
 * I'm not even sure what I meant. I either copy/pasted wrong or thought the last word was lovely... maybe I shouldn't do this before caffiene in the morning. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * buy an espresso machine, it's fast and the rush is quick. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"claims that Hannah was so protected that "the poor" was just a meaningless euphemism for her." can be either read as "the poor" was a euphemism used to describe her or that she does not understand that people could be poor, suggest "to her"
 * The passage is perfectly clear. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but it isn't important. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"This is likely to be an exaggeration, ..." "Foo says bar. It really is baz." is too assertive. In any case, she could have been so protected that she did not understand what it was to be poor and then later find out and start working to help the poor. When did the cousin say it, later in life? Had they had contact later in life? Was he just describing her childhood?
 * The passage is perfectly clear. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "X, who didn't like her, said Y. Y is wrong because." is biased even if it is true. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Biased, true or a downright lie, it was said abd recorded and is referenced. If peole wish to know more or check the fact that is why the reference is there. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

party at Mentmore for the Prince of Wales, who was the Prince of Wales at the time?
 * There was only one Prince of Wales for the greater part of the 19th century and he is already linked twice, people should have grasped that by the time they reach that section. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the end of the first section. He has never been mentioned before this, unless I am blind. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the betrothal section, Archibald is introduced as just the Earl of Rosebery, later you learn his first name is Archibald and then later again you finally mention Primrose. Why not just call him Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery in the first place?
 * Because it all needs to be explained and I feel it read better that way. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

She made herself the link between the world and her "thin skinned and neurotic" husband. - who is being quoted?
 * Please click the cite Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It just says McKinstry and a page number, but I would rather not have to click footnotes to know who a quote is from. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a legitimate way of citing on Wikipedia - otherwise very alternate sentance would be "according to X" or "Y said". Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not to say she was a bad mother: in an era of plentiful nannies, wet nurses, nurserymaids and governesses in the upper classes, her lack of attention to her children was not unusual or even remarkable. - I would suggest that it does make her a bad mother, leaving a newly born daughter in the hands of the help while she went off for three months...but it is largely editorial. Drop the bad mother part.
 * It is necessary as it is a piece of social history that needs to be explained. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Kotepho - yes, it does need to be explained, but you can explain without editorializing by writing "In an era ... or even remarkable." and dropping the first 10 words. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a look at that section and made some changes. I'm afraid Kotepho's "dead" and "stupid" coments below when he knew perfectly well what was meant have made me want to dismiss him and his comments somewhat at contemptible. Giano 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He was an idealist who disliked the rancour of politics, in fact "his innate dislike of politics was something Lady Rosebery always fought against." unclear who is being quoted
 * Please click the cite Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As above. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This first became evident in the great campaign to re-elect Gladstone. wikilink Gladstone, the only one anywhere around is in the image caption
 * That would be enough for some people, however, I have linked another Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You never know if the reader even sees the images and the image captions are likely to be swept away along with the image, was my point. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a risk with anything on Wikipedia that is unavoidable. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Home Rule or Irish home rule, later Home Rule for Ireland pick one
 * Fixed. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oral Instruction of the Dead and Dumb - why is this capitalized? Dumb is a dab page that lists either stupid or mute.
 * To refer to the deaf and dumb as the dead and stupid may seem amusing to you, to many it is not. However, the problem is fixed. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not sure why it is capitalized. If it is a proper noun is it an association, a school, a technique, or what?  Dumb still links to a disambiguation page that lists both muteness and stupidity as possible targets.  Either target is plausible.  Both mute people and stupid people are likely to need special instruction.  Leading readers to disambiguation pages makes them guess what what you possibly meant when they might have already been confused as to what you meant and clicked on the link for clarification.  Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not think it was capitalised any more - I will look again and make it lowercase if it stil is. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Durdans, without quotation marks or italics in the Death section
 * Fixed. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is still "The Durdans" in the Marriage section and The Durdans in the Death section. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly an interesting story. Kotepho 14:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the page, I have addressed your points individually above. I'm afraid I don't agree with many of your comments, but have addressed those which I can. Giano 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing I missed earlier - can you get a page number for note number 90 (the Churchill quote in Ferguson)? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As soon as I can get my hands on the copy again. Giano 06:24, 6 July 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.