Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary, Queen of Scots/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 promoted by Ian Rose 14:42, 10 May 2012.

Mary, Queen of Scots

 * Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it meets the criteria. It also has abduction, murder and racy details. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Was Mary really a queen regnant when she was 6 days old, 9 months before she was crowned? That's not squaring with the dictionary definitions. (Of course, it wouldn't be the first word that historians use differently from lexicographers ... just asking.)
 * Yes. Queens become de jure queens regnant when they are proclaimed. Coronation follows take months or even years later. This is to allow a decent period of mourning for the former monarch. (King Edward VIII was never crowned.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Church of St. Michael": St or St.?
 * "he was not an agnatic descendant of Stewart kings, but rather of their immediate ancestors": Would "he was not a direct descendant ..." work?
 * These are not the same thing. Prince Phillip is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria; but he is not an agnatic descendant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Mary, Queen of Scots. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the copy-edit.
 * Do you have an alternative suggestion for the lead sentence? Sovereign? monarch?
 * Well, she inherited the throne as a newborn. Whatever you think is best.
 * Changed.
 * No, because he was a direct descendant through a female line, but we could use "patrilineal"? DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice choice. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FN 175: 194?
 * Missing citation info for Weir 2004, Weir 1988
 * FN 202: date?
 * Compare formatting of Bain and Boyd
 * Location for Williams and Swain?
 * Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: An extremely well-written article, with just the right level of detail and, yes, "raciness"! I knew very little about Mary and found this very interesting and informative, but readable too. Just a few minor points which do not affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Beaton's claim was based on an allegedly forged version of the late king's will": Allegedly is a little weak; if someone claimed it was a forgery, it is better to say who than use allegedly.
 * Changed to "that his opponents dismissed as a forgery".
 * Why did her mother not become regent until 1554? The obvious question is why Arran held the "position" when her mother was "available". What changed?
 * I shall look into this; I suspect the death of Edward VI led to a resurgence of the pro-Catholic party.
 * Second paragraph of "Life in France": Three consecutive sentence begin with "She". Very picky, but it stands out a little among the rest of the excellent prose.
 * Changed.
 * "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, oval-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth pale skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features": As written, this sounds a little like editorial opinion.
 * This is essentially from Fraser, but is also supported by Guy and Weir. There are also very similar descriptions in Donaldson's Mary, Queen of Scots (1974) p. 56.
 * "However, when her uncle the Cardinal of Lorraine began negotiations with Archduke Charles of Austria without her consent, she naturally objected": Again, a hint of editorial voice with "naturally"?
 * Changed to "angrily", which is much closer to the sources.
 * "where he apparently raped her": Not sure about "apparently". If it is a claim, who made it?
 * I've added the main contemporary source to the footnote; "apparently" is the word used by Wormald.
 * "his formidable wife": POV? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a standard characterisation of Bess of Hardwicke. Guy and Wormald call her redoubtable. Fraser calls her a formidable matron, and quotes others saying "termagent" and "a woman of masculine understanding and conduct, proud, furious, selfish and unfeeling". Donaldson says she "was a dominating character, shrewd and calculating in business and something of a termagent in the household" (p 159). Thank you for the support. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  beginning a read-through now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After the accession of James I in England, William Camden wrote an officially-sanctioned biography .. - I'd add a word or two describing Camden, like historian.


 * Had other questions but answered elsewhere on this page. Nice work/ no dealbreakers outstanding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added "historian", as suggested. Thanks for the support and the read-through. DrKiernan (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and a few Comments It looks like there may be too many repeated wikilinks, feel free to revert my copyedits if they're not pleasing.
 * "While in the French court, she was a favourite with everyone, except Henry II's wife Catherine de' Medici." Is it known why Medici disliked her?
 * Added "Catherine's interests competed with those of the Guise family, and there may have been an element of jealousy or rivalry between the two queens" to the footnote.
 * "which Moray refused to do as Chastelard was already under restraint. He was tried for treason, and beheaded." Which one was tried for treason?
 * Clarified as Chastelard.
 * Might want to add some metric conversions, "he was over six feet tall", "ilver-gilt casket just less than one foot long" & " was two feet high and draped in black"
 * "Moray's death coincided with a rebellion in the North of England, which persuaded Elizabeth that Mary was a threat." Might want to note the motivation of the uprising.
 * Added "led by Catholic earls".
 * "Norfolk was executed, and the English Parliament introduced a bill barring Mary from the throne, to which Elizabeth refused to give royal assent." I'm a bit curious, is it known why should didn't give assent, wouldn't that have been a good bill from her perspective?
 * Not necessarily. I doubt Elizabeth ever wanted to exclude or debar Mary from the succession, and she definitely did not want James excluded. Her policy was to neither confirm nor exclude any successor.
 * "Mary was misled into thinking her letters were secure, while in reality they were deciphered and read by Walsingham.[196] From these letters it was clear that Mary had sanctioned the attempted assassination of Elizabeth." I take it that historians generally believe these were authentic and she really had sanctioned it? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; her defenders focus on legal arguments or moral justification rather than outright denial. Thank you for the support and the review. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, your changes and explanations work for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * Comment Some nitpicking from me.
 * "... there was a huge explosion at his residence ..." - that reads sensationalistic
 * "... James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, who was generally believed to have..." - unclear, that could use a little more context as for who did the believing, at least - are contemporaries meant or later historians?

Escape and imprisonment in England Hekerui (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... refused to attend the inquiry at York personally (she sent representatives) but Elizabeth forbade her attendance anyway." - that sentence can do without the "anyway" at the end and be shortened and made more plain

Concern: Mary Stuart is the topic of a number of novels, dramas, including Stefan Zweig's biography and Friedrich Schiller's drama. However, there does not seem to be anything related to such topics in the article. Why not? Like this, I believe the article should be titled "Biography of Mary", instead of "Mary". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My two cents: the longer an article gets, the less likely it is to be read (or reviewed!), and that's had the effect of limiting the size of articles, especially FACs. This article's length, given the subject, is already average-to-long.  Judgment calls are needed; what would you take out of the current article to make room for the fictional treatments? - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been split off into Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots. The nominated article is a biography of the real Mary. The fictional Mary is treated in the other article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However, I think it is unavoidable to have a summary of all the facts related to Mary, be it her real life or the reception history etc. in other works. IMO, this FAC candidacy can only be successful if a) the article is specifically limited to M's biography (in which case Biography of Mary, Queen of Scots should be created, and the current article should contain a summary of the biography and the cultural depictions (and other similar articles, should they exist) or b) this article gets a reasonable summary-style section covering containing the most important features of Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots. In the latter case, Dank is right, the article might benefit from some trimming of the biographical material. (The choice what to trim is probably best left to the authors, I'm certainly not in the position to judge that.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what's going on here, but isn't it to be taken for granted that the article "Mary" would be a biography? I'd assume, if it gets too long, it would be better to follow the pattern of the other world leader articles I've checked and spin off her reign of Scotland to a separate article. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An excellent article! If there are reliable, secondary sources available on which to base a paragraph about her cultural depictions, linking to Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots as the main article, we should probably cover it here. I'd distinguish though between secondary source analysis and us simply noting "here are some fictional books in which she appears"! I can't volunteer any suggestions for secondary sources to use; from biographical articles I've written, they're often in short supply. If space was critical, I'd trim a little of the detail about her execution, or a paragraph of the Casket Letters section. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I noticed this discussion and felt compelled to comment. I also think there should be a summary of Mary's cultural depictions. Just because it has its own designated article, doesn't mean there's no need to mention it in her main article. It can't be called comprehensive otherwise. Why not just add a paragraph at the end of the Legacy section? -- Lobo (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * .....I keep hearing the python skit....."Are you Mary Queen of Scots?"......(chuckle)Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes
 * Did I miss an image check above? If not, we'll need one.
 * DK, I'm sure you've had a spotcheck of sources at FAC recently but can you pls point the latest out to me?
 * No explicit sourcing for the Ancestry diagram -- does it just rehash cited material in the main body of the article? Otherwise we should include a source for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Recent spotchecks at Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive2 and Featured article candidates/George II of Great Britain/archive2.
 * The ancestral table is probably from Gerald Paget's Lineage of HRH the Prince of Wales, however your comment made me realise that it is not actually very useful. I've consequently replaced it with family trees showing the relationship between Mary, Darnley, Arran, the Tudors, and the Lennoxes. These trees are shown in Fraser, Guy and Weir. DrKiernan (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've pinged Laser Brain for an image check.
 * Re. spotchecking, yes, I remember the Elizabeth II one now, I requested it...! That's fine, I don't need to see one here then.
 * Re. the new table(s), can you just cite to one of those sources so it's clear to the reader? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure how to do that, so I've just floated the footnote marker below the section header. DrKiernan (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, doesn't look great like that does it? Now that I've brought it up, I'm not sure we have a standard for this... MOS doesn't allow wikilinking section headers but I don't remember seeing a rule against adding a citation to a subheading -- although a better solution might be to simply use bold text in place of the two subheaders, and cite those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done the latter. DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review: All images verified to be public domain or another appropriate free license. But, I do have concerns with the encyclopedic use of the following images:
 * File:Royal Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland (1559-1560).svg, File:Royal Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland (1560-1565).svg, and File:Royal Arms of Mary, Queen of Scots, France & England.PNG. Where are these discussed in the text of the article? What is the source for her royals arms appearing as such? The third one looks pretty bad as well—someone mashed existing vector images in there. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are on the file pages, or in the last case at the mother file File:COA french queen Marie Stuart.svg. "Henry II of France proclaimed his eldest son and his daughter-in-law king and queen of England, and they adopted the royal arms of England", means that the English arms were quartered with hers, in France, and so the main files here are File:Royal Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland (1559-1560).svg and File:Royal Arms of Mary, Queen of Scots, France & England.PNG as they show the difference between her arms in Scotland without the English claim, and her arms as used in France with the English claim. I could change "adopted the royal arms of England" to "in France they quartered the royal arms of England with their own".
 * Fair enough. It sounds like a matter of my ignorance of how arms are used. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Tomb effigy of Mary, Queen of Scots (copy).jpg. Again, where is this discussed in the text? I see no mention of the National Museum of Scotland except in the image caption. This image is of low value since it's essentially a copy of the one above it and it depicts something that's not mentioned in the article. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been included merely to show an alternative angle as the actual tomb is not easy to photograph because of the layout of the chapel. I'm not especially attached to it, but I did think it added something beyond the other image. DrKiernan (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point about the alternative angle—but can we mention in the article text why a copy was made for National Museum of Scotland so the image has some context? -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the museum from the caption, as the reason for the file's inclusion is the alternative view rather than to mention the museum. DrKiernan (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Andy for the image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


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