Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexandra of Denmark

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:15, 11 September 2008 [1].

Alexandra of Denmark edit

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)


Comments

  • Per the MOS, the curly quotes around a block quotation aren't to be used. {{blockquote}} works instead, among other choices.
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns 1) Aesthetically speaking, Image:AlexandraGravesend.jpg seems to be a little off in its current location. 2) Lead is too short for the article's size. 3) The chart with children seems out of place and aesthetically unpleasing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Image size reduced. 2. Lead expanded. 3. Chart removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1. Princess (later Queen) Mary is referred to as May twice, without explanation of the nickname. 2. "Remained faithful" has just a touch of paternalistic air that is perhaps not appropriate in the 21st Century. "is not known to have had any extramarital affairs" might be better. 3. There's been some discussion that Alexandra tried to influence her husband over the war with Prussia. Anything in your sources on that? 4. "Despite now being queen, Alexandra's duties changed little, and she kept many of the same retainers." The Queen's duties were virtually identical to those of the Princess of Wales? 5. What about separating her time as Queen Consort from that as Queen Dowager, at least in subsections?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. May changed to Mary throughout. 2. I prefer a short phrase, which has a multiple meaning of loyal, obedient, dutiful and devout, rather than a longer phrase which covers less ground. 3. Attempts to influence foreign policy and anti-German feelings added to the lead and illustrated with other examples. 4. Yes, for consorts. 5. Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues. Image concerns also resolved per below. Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life
    • "her father's income was about £800 per year" — Assuming the reader knows nothing about royalty, where did Prince Christian receive his income from? Was it from his estates, some form of profession, or the King of Denmark?
    • Why did Hans Christian Andersen visit the family? Was he a friend, a member of the court, or on some invitation?
    • "grace and favour property" — I get the gist of what the phrase means, but I think other readers might not. Could it be rendered in layman terms?
    • "was confirmed in" — Eh... she was confirmed as what?
    Marriage and family
    • "their daughter, Crown Princess Victoria of Prussia", "Albert Edward's sister, the Crown Princess of Prussia," — A case of over-linking and repetitive use of the title? Why not simply use Victoria for the second mention?
    • Was Randolph Churchill a Lord at that time (the honeymoon send-off)?
    • What does "issue" refer to in Marriage column of the table of children?
    • The table of children seems out-of-place (information presented within are not used anywhere else in the article or provide a smooth reading experience at this point). Could it be moved elsewhere, leaving short list of her children in prose form?
    Princess of Wales
    • Does Sultan Abdul-Aziz require a definite article ("the Sultan Abdul-Aziz"), and should his name not be Abdülaziz?
    • "Biographers are agreed" — I think taking out the "are", turning the passive sentence into an active one, would be a good idea? ('tis a minor issue)
    • "during a visit to Ireland in 1885, she suffered a rare moment of public hostility" — As an exception to the general welcome she received for her visits, the reasons for the hostility should be briefly stated? Mayhaps, a brief note about rising nationalism (or whatever the cause) could suffice.
    Queen Alexandra
    • "Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King when he agreed to the request of the Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, to help force the bill through Parliament against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons." — A pretty long sentence with two "whens". Could it be broken up into simpler sentences?
    Legacy
    • "her loyal Comptroller" — Is it accurate to link to Comptroller?
    • Can the last two standalone sentences be eliminated or integrated into greater parts of the article?
A very interesting insight into a member of the British royal family. Overall, the prose is great. Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about Andersen, I think he was retained by the King at some point; I could remove that sentence if necessary. Yes, Churchill became a Lord in 1857, when his father became a Duke. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indention) I have struck those that have been implemented and raise further inquiries on the above as follows:
    • I believe Hans Christian Andersen's visits are of wonderful value to the article and should be kept, but explanation should be given as to why the esteemed writer was accorded special status to visit the royal family. In Hans Christian Andersen by Sven Hakon Rossel (p. 65), it is written that Andersen's diary tells of invitations from the royal family to spend time with them.
    • The article grace and favour was used as a link. The article, however, describes the term as used for properties owned by the British Crown. It seems a bit strange to me that Danish royals are living on a British royal property in Denmark... Should the article (grave and favour) or the term (as used in Alexandra of Denmark) be rewritten?
    • I think there was a slight misunderstanding for Victoria. What I meant was why not replace "Albert Edward's sister, the Crown Princess of Prussia," with "Albert Edward's sister, Victoria," or simply "Victoria,"?
    • "Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King's decision to agree to the Prime Minister's request to help force the bill through Parliament against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons." is still pretty hefty with the "to"s. Might I suggest "Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King's decision to help the Prime Minister force the bill through Parliament against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons."?
Hope those were of help. Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course it's of help. Thanks. I've changed "Biographers are agreed". I've changed "Anderson would call" to "Anderson was invited", as he would have to be invited at some point, regardless of his position. I've edited the grace and favour article to open out the article and make it less UK-centric. I don't want to use "Victoria" alone, as this is easily confused with all the other Victorias, but I've removed the repeat of "Albert Edward", which lightens the sentence. The problem with "the King's decision to help" is that it fails to convey that the King did not necessarily want to help, or agree with the policy. Only that he agreed to follow the advice of the Prime Minister and not block the wishes of his Government. I have changed this now to: Despite her personal views, Alexandra supported the King's decision to help force the bill through Parliament at the Prime Minister's request but against the wishes of the House of Lords when the reforming party won elections to the House of Commons. DrKiernan (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The changes looks great! Holding off judgment until the images are addressed (below). Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why is "great power" capitalised? It's not in the relevant article, though I note it is in the quotes.
  • Right now, "his distant cousin" is a piped link, with no mention of who his cousin was - I think that the name should be at least mentioned.
  • "At the age of sixteen she was chosen as the future wife of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, the heir of Queen Victoria, and married him eighteen-months later." - First of all, this sentence is very difficult to read. Secondly, why is there a hyphen between "eighteen" and "months".
  • I'm unsure why the first mention of her name in the "Early life" section is bolded.
  • "Princely blood" should probably be the more common phrase "royal blood".
  • "An uneasy peace was agreed" - this doesn't really make sense in its current form. How does one agree a piece? I can't think of a viable rephrasing offhand right now, but I'm sure you could find one.
  • "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife, Louise Rasmussen, his former mistress" - because of what follows, this currently is rather difficult to read. Suggest "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife and former mistress, Louise Rasmussen..."
  • Some overlinking throughout.

I like the overall style of this article; it's not as stiff as some articles that pass through here, but there are things you can work on, as the examples given above. I did a little copyediting in the second section as well; nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Although both are listed as in the public domain, why is Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg (upper body portrait) in the article when Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg (full body portrait) serves the same purpose in identifying the subject (especially when the caption for the former image is simply "Alexandra")? There is already a Commons portal to take users to other free images at different angles.
  • All images are listed as in the public domain, either by publishment before 1923 in United States or the Library of Congress's purchase of the rights and stating no known restrictions for the use of the image. However, in the FAC for Voyage of the James Caird, an obstruction was raised in the sense that images stored on the Commons would be deleted if they could not satisfy the public domain requirements in the country of publishing. Hence, Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg, Image:Alexandra.jpg, and Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg would have to comply with British public domain laws to stay at Commons without dispute. A solution (as done in Voyage of the James Caird) is to upload these images to Wikipedia (which only needs to comply with US public domain laws).
As no one has yet brought up discussion over the images, let me start. Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the only close-up picture.
  • How awkward and confusing. Surely as they are all published outside of the US before 1909, they are all public domain here? Colorising Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg renders it newly copyrightable in the UK, as independent creative talent has been used on it, but Peter has released it under a creative commons license. DrKiernan (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acknowledging that we would prefer to have a close-up picture to identify the subject, could we not replace Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg in the infobox with Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg? I think having one picture that best identifies the subject would be better than several in the article.
  • Indeed. The argument raised in the FAC I pointed out was that the opposer refused to support an article in which the images might be deleted. As the images are stored on the Commons, they would be deleted if no proof can be given on their copyright status in their country of publishing. Hence, the alternative solution to simply move them to Wikipedia itself. Let us work on this. Are the pictures Crown copyrighted? If so, they are definitely public domain after 50 years since publishing, and we can simply indicate them in the description on the image page. If not (the photographer simply licensed the photo to the Crown), then we would have to prove the photographer has died more than 70 years ago. I have asked Elcobbola to help us take a look and determine if we can ignore this (or would have to shift them to Wikipedia). Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given that a go.
  • On the second point, and using the 1988 law which may or may not apply retrospectively but we'll use it anyway as the most rigid law, if Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg is taken by Alexandra, then copyright is expired as it is more than 70 years since her death. If the copyright of the Downey pictures rests with the company, then copyright is expired since it is more than 70 years since the creation of the images. If the copyright rests with the photographer, who was probably W. E. Downey (who took most of the royal photographs for W. and D. Downey), then he died in 1908, again more than 70 years ago. If they are Crown Copyright, then again the copyright has expired because it's more than 50 years ago. I'm confident that these images would be found to be public domain in the American courts. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are PD in the US and UK (i.e. don't need to be moved). As the US is concerned, works published outside the U.S. by foreign nationals are PD if published before 1.1.1923. In the UK, for photographs with known authors taken before 30 June 1957, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (William Downey died in 1915). (Although note that, for Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg, the source indeed contains the date 1893, but does not identify it as a publication date. How do we know this is the date of publication and not creation? It's PD either way, but the image summary shouldn't misrepresent that date). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have corrected the information in the image description to reflect that. I feel all my issues with the images have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'm curious about the reason given for this nomination: "because I'm interested in feedback". Surely, that is what the peer review process is for? An article should come to FAC when the nominator feels that it can be defended against FA criteria, rather than as a means of conducting a general seminar on the article. I raise this point because of recent concerns on the FAC talkpage about overload on the FAC page, shortage of reviewers, and the increasing trend towards building FAs during lengthy FAC review processes, which can sometimes turn tetchy, hostile, and lead to "reviewer burnout". This is not a comment on this article's quality, which on a quick readthrough seems excellent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale removed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief additional comment: Why is the result of WWI included in the lead? Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because in the past, I have received comments along the lines of "What was the result of the war? Why isn't it mentioned?" DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question In the lede, you use "Queen Mother" as a proper noun. I thought that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the only individual given the title formally. Shouldn't it be lower case, since it is descriptive? Second, the major example of Alexandra's attempts to sway others politically is in the Queen section, but it really deals with what she did while Princess of Wales. Shouldn't it be moved? And do we have anything on her attempts (if any) to sway her husband and mother in law during the Prussia/Denmark conflict?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • She's "Alexandra the Queen Mother" in the State Prayers, and is referred to in newspapers and parliamentary debates of the time as "The Queen Mother". On the second point, I originally put the example in the Princess section,[3] but I don't think it fits so I moved it.[4] I prefer to place it with similar material rather than break up the flow of the article. On the final point, I've added: To the great irritation of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, Alexandra and Albert Edward supported the Danish side in the war. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alexandra_of_Denmark&oldid=1138454152"