Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince George of Denmark/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 10:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

Prince George of Denmark

 * Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Queen Victoria called him "very stupid and insignificant"; modern historians think he "achieved a major advance for feminism". He was the consort of Queen Anne, and occupied the same position as Prince Albert and Prince Philip. DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I enjoyed reading the article and seeing it grow. I believe this is already a done thing. Congratulations on another one, DrKiernan! Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Nicely written, I've made one or two tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.... I suspect that Duke of Holstein is the wrong link and it was more likely Holstein-Gottorp, specifically Christian Albert, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp the other Duke of Holstein being of course George's brother Christian V of Denmark.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Speck, Gregg and Somerset all say "Duke of Holstein", but yes, from looking at sources on the web they mean Christian Albert. DrKiernan (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I've changed that link, hadn't realised that he was also a Brother in Law via Princess Frederica Amalia of Denmark it might be worth mentioning that. Also it mentions one of George's actions as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports but his appointment is merely covered in a succession box, I'd have thought it would be logical to mention it at the appropriate point in the article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added in his extra appointments . DrKiernan (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done
 * FN76: formatting of title
 * File:Coat_of_Arms_of_George_of_Denmark,_Duke_of_Cumberland.svg: what source(s) were used to create this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the double quotes, I've changed them.
 * It's from Pinches and Pinches. You can also see a monochrome version at http://armorial.library.utoronto.ca/stamps/GEO003_s1. DrKiernan (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Support – A few minor points, none of which affect my support: That's all from me. This is a fine article, a good read, full but not over-full, well illustrated and referenced. Clearly of FA standard in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * General
 * Be consistent with capitalising royal and noble ranks: at present you have, e.g. "Anne became queen", but later "from the Queen's bedchamber".
 * Piping of "Sir" – you have "Sir Godfrey Kneller" and "Sir Godfrey Kneller". I strongly prefer the latter – so much easier on the reader's eye, though a bit more work for the author – but consistency wanted either way.
 * Personal traits and portrayal
 * "Winston Churchill said he "mattered very little"" – given the period we are considering I was moved to click on the link to see if this was the WW2 leader or Marlborough's father. I never like luring people away from my own stuff to other pages, and I wonder if a word of two such as "…in 1947 Winston Churchill said…" might be advisable". Merely a suggestion.
 * Personal traits and portrayal
 * Previous husbands of queens regnant had become kings – citation needed. (I can think only of Philip II of Spain with Mary Tudor, and he was a king already.)
 * Titles, styles, honours and arms
 * The reasons for the italics in this section are not clear to me. I find them a bit distracting.
 * Notes
 * Note 2: Not sure why "possibly" here. Is the alternative generally thought more likely?
 * I do not think there is anything wrong regarding capitalisation of royal titles. In the first instance you mention, the word "queen" is a common noun and in the second, it refers to Anne. See Manual of Style/Biographies and Manual of Style/Capital letters. As for previous husbands of queens regnant, Philip is not the problem; he was king of Naples when he married Mary I of England but then also became king of England. One might argue that Lord Guildford Dudley preceded George as non-regal husband of a queen regnant. Also, the third husband of Mary I of Scotland was not king of Scotland. Since Anne was queen of both England and Scotland, the sentence should probably be reworded or removed. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But, e.g., "George accompanied the king's troops" but "the Queen was devastated" Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an example of inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support. Changes made . The phrase "was a son or possibly a daughter" is used because Gregg says "stillborn son" (without qualification) whereas Weir says "may have been a daughter" (demonstrating uncertainty). DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. Great article. You've brought it a long way from its former state. One small point: I think "Est il possible?" should have a hyphen ("Est-il possible?"), but I could be wrong. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and the correction, now made. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On comprehensiveness and prose, I support comments - reading through now- queries below ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  In February 1685, King Charles II died, without legitimate issue,  - I might remove the comma after the "died", for flow.....


 *  The social and political grouping centred on George and Anne was known as the "Cockpit Circle" after their London residence - were the Cockpit Circle also protestant? I wasn't sure upon reading....

Overall the flow and prose of the bottom 2/3rds of the article is fine - I have a niggling concern that the Early life section is a tad spartan which compromises the flow and engaging nature of the section. Any anecdotal embellishments would help here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've expanded the early life section and removed the comma. The article reads: Protestant opposition to James was therefore increasingly focused around Anne and George ... The social and political grouping centred on George and Anne was known as the "Cockpit Circle". DrKiernan (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Support A very few comments:

George's quote in the second paragraph of "Marriage"--did they have to travel a lot?
 * Very nice proper use of heiress apparent! I had to dive into the Act of Settlement to check it, but it's well done.
 * "The House of Commons passed the bill but it was only narrowly passed by the House of Lords." Can the double use of passed be avoided? In addition, something should be said to make it clearer that the Commons passed it more easily than the Lords.
 * Given the influence that she held over Anne, I think the Duchess of Marlborough should get a better introduction. It is rather offhand and then her role is never explained, but only alluded to until after George's death, where it seems a little after the fact.
 * "Anne refused initially to appoint a new Lord High Admiral". Perhaps some clarification is needed here.  The reader might think Pembroke was appointed Lord High Admiral, when that office was kept in commission until the 1820s when our friend William had his go at it.  I would distinguish more clearly  between Lord High Admiral and  First Lord of the Admiralty throughout the paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. Changes made so far . Sources seem a little confused on whether Pembroke was Lord High Admiral: List of Lord High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty (not sourced) says he was. Somerset calls him "Lord Admiral" and Gregg calls him "first lord". DrKiernan (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pls check the duplicate links (you can use Ucucha's script).
 * Is everyone in the Ancestors diagram cited as a relation somewhere in the article?
 * I prefer to retain the current duplicated links because each article is only linked twice at most, with each of the two links in different sections. In particular, I think it looks odd if one item in a list is not linked (because it was linked in an earlier section) when the other items in the list are linked.
 * The entire tree is from the cite bottom right (Paget, pp. 110–112). DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you've considered the dup links and feel they're justified, fair enough.
 * Mmm, might be clearer that the citation applies to the entire table if was on the "Ancestors of..." title at the top -- anyway, can be taken care of after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.