Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary of Modena/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:44, 24 May 2010.

Mary of Modena

 * Nominator(s): Jack1755 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria outlined in Featured article criteria. By the way, I apologise to any reviewers who I may have upset in the past, especially in regards to Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 00:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Support it as a FA. It's well-written in simple, good prose; it contains the right amount of information for anyone doing research on her; there are plenty of images; and the sources are reliable ones. Nice work!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: Yes, I agree that the article is comprehensive and has lots of fine images, but the prose is a struggle to get through and quite, well, overblown in places. Stylistically, I don't believe it's entirely encyclopedic, which certainly needs to be fixed.  Some examples from the top:
 * A staunch Catholic, Mary was married, in 1673, to James, Duke of York, (the future James II) the younger brother and heir of England's incumbent King, Charles II. -- There's actually not much wrong with this sentence other than the numerous commas. It reads like William Shatner speaks, if that makes any sense. ;)
 * Uninterested in politics, she was devoted to James, and bore him two children who survived to adulthood: Louise Mary and the Jacobite claimant to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones, James Francis Edward Stuart, known to history as "The Old Pretender". -- This has several issues.  Is it really worth noting that she was "uninterested in politics"? and "devoted to James"?  Rather, I would expect the lead to note if she was interested in politics and not devoted to James, since these factors clearly go against the norms of the time.  "known to history" also sounds peacocky.
 * I don't know if it's worth noting or not, but Carola Oman, the author of Mary of Modena, certainly does. The article doesn't contain any orignal ideas. Please elaborate on how her devtion and dislike of politics was the 'norm' at the time, giving examples. Thanks.  -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear, but I didn't mean to imply that the article contains OR; rather, it's the way some of the material is presented that I find issue with. I, certainly not an expert in the field, would automatically assume that a Queen regent would stick by her man and not dabble in politics, instead doing her duty to the crown by popping out princes at every opportune time.  I of course won't argue facts, but that's my understanding.  To throw into the lead that Mary was devoted, etc., seems unnecessary because it implies that the "norm" was otherwise -- political wives who hated their husbands.  That's what it implies to me.  This one point, however, is admittedly not as important as some of the other concerns I've come across, so feel free to disagree. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of the English public believed he was a changeling, brought into the birth-chamber in a warming-pan, in order to perpetuate King James II's Catholic dynasty. Although this accusation was completely false, and the subsequent privy council investigation only re-affirmed this... -- "brought into the chamber", etc., seems superfluous as it detracts from the rest of the sentence. Also, from what I gather, it wasn't the birth that was controversial, but its supposedly false circumstances, yes?  The previous sentence may therefore need to be clarified.  "this accusation was completely false, and the subsequent..." etc., is very awkward as it needlessly places blame; rather, the accusation was found to be false by a privy council investigation.  State the facts, nice and simple.
 * Well, aren't parenthetical elements, like 'brought into the chamber', superfluous by definition? I mean, of course it detracts from the core-meaning of the sentence--it doesn't need to be there. It was the birth of a Catholic heir that agitated the Protesants. The birth itself had myriad witnesses, but most Protestants chose to ignore this fact and to concoct stories about the 'Pope's daughter'. Keep in mind that the English population at the time was notoriously anti-Catholic. Again, thanks for the constructive criticism, Maria! :D -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mary was popular among Louis XIV's courtiers; James was considered a bore, however. -- Is this important? If it is, the phrasing gives undue weight to James' poor reputation.  Make Mary the subject of the sentence: "As opposed to James...", perhaps?
 * Mary's education was excellent; -- Rather than tell us it was excellent, show it.
 * I'm confused. Mary is the subject of the first independent clause; James, the second. The sentence has two subjects. Yes, it is important because their life in France, between plotting to dethrone William and Mary, was spent at Louis XIV's court. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did: 'Mary's education was excellent;[7] she spoke French and Italian fluently, had a good knowledge of Latin and, later, mastered English.' Emphasis on the semi-colon. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Modena was firmly within his sphere of influence, Louis XIV of France zealously endorsed Mary's candidature -- "firmly within his sphere of influence"? "zealously"?
 * I got the phrase 'firmly within his spere of influence' fron Asia Times Online. Would fervently be better? I don't really get your point here, Maria, but I do appreciate your constructive criticism. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above examples (and I'm sure there are more), I don't believe this article's prose currently exemplifies what is described in the FA criteria. It's judgmental and needlessly flowery, rather than professional and engaging. I was curious as to the nominator's note above re: the de' Medici article, so I glanced at the previous FACs, and it seems that the prose there was also an issue for several reviewers. I suggest asking a copy-editor with FA experience to weed out/reword any potential issues with wording and word-choice. Yes, some of it may come down to personal preference, but I know FA-standard when I read it, and this article just isn't there yet. Best of luck, María ( habla con migo ) 12:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maria, I beg to differ with you, but how is known to history peacocky? Also, it's certainly important to note that she was uninterested in politics, considering she was married to the King of England and many queen consorts did have a habit of meddling in state affairs (Margaret of Anjou, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of France, Eleanor of Provence, Henrietta Maria, Anne Boleyn, to name but a few! Finally, what does William Shatner have to do with this article and how would a person speak with commas? By the way, the commas are being used appropriately so as to avoid having choppy sentences. Honestly, I am disappointed with your assessment of this FAC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jeanne boyleyn, thank you for your comments. As I stated above, the "uninterested in politics", etc., may simply be my own misgivings, so feel free to disagree.  I still believe it reads strangely, but oh well.  As for William Shatner, that was a joke -- see the winking smiley? :) Have you heard Shatner speak?  He!  Speaks!  Like!  This!  Very amusing, I assure you, but my point was five commas -- five! -- may be grammatically correct, but the sentence is incredibly difficult to navigate.  It needs rewording so that so many commas are not necessary.  Easily enough to do.  I haven't read the article in full, but I believe a copy-edit by someone familiar with the FA criteria may help.  Hope this clarifies things, María ( habla  con migo ) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just broke up the sentence with the commas into two separate ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments I agree with María (though in fact not with all her examples). I remember the same issues last time with Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici.
 * The admittedly complicated "cast-list" produce some especially mind-scrambling passages. Linking is not great - I added House of d'Este, but we have an article on Guy-Crescent Fagon, and why on earth is Queen Anne introduced as "Lady Anne (the future Princess of Denmark)"?! There are numerous extra complications introduced. Anne Hyde should be linked when first mentioned.
 * The parenthesis after Queen Anne was the work of the GA reviwer. Huh? Anne Hyde is linked when first mentioned. See "The Popish plot and exile" section. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I removed it anyway. Now, the link is in 'Duchess of York': '...to the commoner Anne Hyde' -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Parliament and the English public—who were predominately Anglican..." needs rewriting. Parliament were by law 100% Anglican; the people are a more complicated matter, though "predominantly Protestant" would be uncontroversial. DONE
 * The prose is just not free-flowing. Quick example: "Her English reception was much cooler." (whole sentence). No - "Her reception in England was much cooler." Sentences try to squeeze too much in:"In February 1787, the Queen, at the time irritated by the King's affair with Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, moved into new Christopher Wren-designed £13,000 apartments in Whitehall, which had been home to a Catholic chapel since December 1686" - what, the palace or the apartments? "designed by CW at a cost of £13K". This should be at least two sentences - three might be better. EXAMPLES DONE
 * "the Yorks were begrudgingly exiled to Brussels, a domain of the King of Spain, ostensibly to visit Lady Mary—since 1677 Princess of Orange as the wife of Prince William III." - It needs explaining that William & Mary were in Holland not Brussels. "since 1677 the wife of Prince William III of Orange" would be clearer & more familiar.
 * The sources used, especially those used most heavily, are rather old & more popular than scholarly.
 * Could you name the sources which are old and more popular than scholarly, please? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See below. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Duke of York, an avowed Catholic..." it needs explaining that James had only recently converted from Anglicanism, apparently in the previous year in secret, though it was soon an open one. Also that Anne Hyde had died in 1671. DONE
 * More later. But this needs someone to go through & work on the prose throughout. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of working over the prose to route out long sentences. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of pruning. What do you think? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The following two sources collectively account for 57% of all Mary of Modena's citations:
 * 'Scholarly' Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, published 1905, is cited as a source in numerous modern works: A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689 - 1718, Cambridge University Press (2004), The English Historical Review (Vol. 108: 1993), among others. Additionally, a list of works that cite ISBN-enabled copies of Mary of Modena can viewed on google books: ;
 * Published in 1962, Mary of Modena by Oxford-educated Carola Oman, Lady Lenanton, CBE, is recommended by Encyclopaedia Britannica. The 1974 edition (ISBN-enabled) is cited by the following: . -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I'd really appreciate it if someone replied this time. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...-- Jack1755 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Further sources comment: In terms of reliability, the sources chosen look OK. All links check out. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support - I've been asked to have a look at this article by its author as I have provided copyediting advice on several of his other articles. I think on the whole that this is a very fine article, and I don't think that the sometimes florid prose is a problem (although it occassionally can obscure meaning). I have left a list of problems that I saw below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am now satisified that this article meets all of the criteria.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mary was popular among Louis XIV's courtiers; James was considered a bore, however." - This sentance is over complex, perhaps "however, James was" as an alternative.
 * "born on 5 October 1658 NS" - Even with the link, just putting "NS" is not massively helpful. I suggest giving the date as they saw it and then a comment in brackets (i.e. "born on 25 September 1658 (5 October 1658 in the New Style)". In fact, I think that a footnote explaining why the article veers between NS and OS dates would be very helpful.
 * "the year Mary turned 4" - it is usual to give figures below 10 (or for some 12) in letters rather than numbers.
 * "by Lord Peterborough." - explain briefly who Peterborough was so that we can see why he was in a position to chose a wife for the prince.
 * "He gave her an £8,000 brooch" - In the money of the time? Can you use the conversion template to establish how much that would be worth today?
 * "the Duchess of York was saddened by James's extra-marital affairs" - in brussels or in general? Can you expand on this point?
 * "Princess Anne of Denmark" - it isn't immediately clear that this is the Anne that was mentioned earlier since you haven't mentioned that she moved to Denmark or married a Dane.
 * Double check spelling and grammar as they can sometimes be a bit off - I had to make a few corrections myself.
 * Thanks so, so much, Jackyd101. I really appreciate it! I implemented all of your recommendations. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From your respective silences, Maria and Johnbod, I infer that you both feel I have addressed your concerns! -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Jack has done everything required of him to bring the article up to FA standards, so let's get the show on the road and have some feedback.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an appropriate inference, unfortunately. If you haven't already, feel free to ping Maria and Johnbod on their talk pages to see if they can revisit the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Karanacs -- I was pinged earlier today to revisit this nom. I'm afraid I don't have the time to read the article in its entirety at the moment, and so I can neither support nor oppose this nomination.  I'm glad to know an effort has been made to tone down the prose, however.  That was my main concern. María ( habla  con migo ) 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Karanacs. I was trying to provoke a reply--at this rate from anyone. Thanks, Maria. All the best. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. There were some problems with the prose but they have all been resolved. All facts are there and sources are cited for each. The topic of the article is sensitive due to different Catholic/Protestant points of view yet the article itself is completely neutral. I think this article now meets the FA criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Support: I believe that the unencylcopaedic, or overblown, tone of Mary of Modena has been rectified as per the above comments. -- Vivara (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose by Karanacs. The prose needs serious work to reach FA quality and I feel like the article does not really give a good idea of who Mary was. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) In light of that, I'm going to withdraw, not that agree with all of your points, Karanacs. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose is not FA quality and need work. Analyzing the lead alone:
 * A devout Catholic, Mary became, in 1673, the second wife of James, Duke of York, the younger brother and heir of Charles II, who later succeeded him as King James II. - There is a pronoun/clause-agreement issue here. I read the last clause as modifying "Charles II", when that's not what is intended.
 * The third sentence of the lead has two different modifiers for her son James in an area offset by a colon. These types of long and slightly unwieldy sentences make it more difficult for the reader to follow what the article is trying to convey.
 * Born a princess of the Italian Duchy of Modena, Mary is primarily remembered for the controversial birth of James Francis Edward, her only surviving son - This sentence has repetition - we were told in the previous sentence that she had only one surviving son and a bit about controversy surrounding him. The two pieces of the sentence are also unrelated.
 * Next sentence - do "birth chamber" and "warming pan" really need hypens?
 * Although this accusation was completely false, and the subsequent privy council investigation only reaffirmed this-- two problems with this: first, we are proclaiming a fact without really telling why, and second, this is overly wordy and circular. You could fix both problems with something like "Witnesses and a privy council investigation affirmed that James was Mary's son"
 * Exiled to France, the "Queen over the water"—as Jacobites (followers of James II) called Mary—lived with her husband and children in the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, provided by Louis XIV of France.  -- Is the name "the Queen over the water" really important enough for the lead? If so, please reword, because that clause that is set off breaks the flow of the sentence.  Also, this is the second time that Jacobite is used in the lead but the first time it is explained. Do we need to know which chateau she lived in?
 * A few seconds later, we mention her widowhood but we don't mention when she was widowed until the sentence after that.
 * These same prose problems are visible throughout the article. There is significant repetition (ex: 1st para early life wwe're given years and her age when it should be fairly obvious).
 * Is it important that Lord Peterborough was groom of the stole? What is a groom of the stole? If the role has no bearing on his being asked to look for a wife for James, then it doesn't need to be mentioned (just say he's a courtier), otherwise, we might need to know what that is.
 * We're told what Laura was waiting for why, so why the followup "Whatever the reason for Laura's initial reluctance"? This is also repetition - previous sentence said "not initially forthcoming", this sentence uses "finally".  We're being beaten over the head with the concept.
 * We're told that the English public was angry that she was Catholic since they were Protestant, but we aren't told why a Catholic was sought out until the next section. It might be important to mention earlier that James was Catholic to put things in context.
 * How could James be an avowed Catholic who had converted secretly? Was it public knowledge that he was Catholic or not?  Why are we told when he converted after we're told he is Catholic (and again, why after we're told the people were mad that Mary was Catholic)?
 * What was the age difference between Mary and her stepdaughters?
 * Why did James choose Mary? Surely there were other pretty Catholic noblewomen - what made her special?
 * What caused Mary to warm to her new husband?
 * I don't understand the gambling part. Is this really important?  Did her noblewomen think Mary would become ill, that people would look down on her for not gambling, or that people would be afraid she'd look down on them because they gambled?
 * Who is Queen Catherine? Charles's wife?
 * King shouldn't be capitalized when it isn't directly in front of someone's name.
 * I don't think we should be using noble titles after the person's first introduction (so no need for multiple "Lady Isabella" and "Lady Anne"). See other FAs of royalty/nobility.
 * What does this mean - "Precedents were sought for Mary"
 * why do we refer to Mary over and over as "the Queen"? Why not just "Mary"?
 * One of the monetary terms is converted also to current value but the rest are not. Please be consistent.
 * Image captions should not have periods unless they are full sentences
 * Did she move to Whitehall because it had a Catholic chapel? If so, say so; if not, why is that important?  And honestly, "since December 1686" implies there has been a length time lapse, not just 2 or 3 months.
 * Did the king go with her to Whitehall? The first sentence makes it seem like she moved out in a huff; the third sentence makes it sound like the king went too.
 * what were Anne's findings?
 * overlinking - it is not necessary to keep linking to William III, Mary II, etc. and Protestantism is linked in the Regency section, long after we had been introduced to the concept.
 * We aren't supposed to use collapsed tables as article content, and you have two sections that are comprised solely of collapsed tables.
 * Why does the article use the Encylopedia Britannica as a source? Surely there are other sources that could be used!
 * What makes this a reliable source: http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/? This appears to be a genealogy database set up by a computer scientist.
 * Overall, I feel like we don't get a very good picture of Mary. I think more detail could be added about, for instance, the pressure she was likely under to produce an heir, and the circumstances that led to 200 people being present in her bedchamber when her son was born.

"brought into the birth-chamber in a warming-pan, in order to perpetuate King James II's Catholic dynasty"—remove to words and a comma? Sorry, I see your note about withdrawing now. Tony  (talk)  13:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


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