Wikipedia:Peer review/Ernest Augustus I of Hanover/archive1

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA and I would like some feedback first.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating, well-written, and well-illustrated. Adding a bit more context here and there for non-British readers would be helpful, and one of the images has problems with its license. Otherwise, my suggestions are about minor prose issues that will take little time to address.

Lead

"He was the fifth son and eighth child of George III who ruled over both the United Kingdom and Hanover." - Comma after III to avoid possible misinterpretation of this sentence to mean that George III had eight children who ruled over both kingdoms?

Military commander

"King George had feared that Ernest, like some of his older brothers, would display Whig tendencies." - Wikilink Whig?
"Although the post could have been a sinecure... ". - Link to sinecure or to its definition in Wiktionary?

Sellis incident and marriage

"The Prince of Wales (now Prince Regent) found the Cumberlands' presence in Britain embarrassing," - Link Prince Regent here rather than in the next paragraph?

Politician

"The Duke had not left his grounds at Kew on the day in question, and was able to ascertain that the rider was one of his equerries... ". - Wikilink equerries? Many readers will be unsure of its meaning.

Domestic affairs

Since this subsection has no content, should it be deleted?

It has content, I divided it into two smaller subsections as it was fairly long.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National development and trade

"Hanover was little affected by the revolutions of 1848 - a few small disturbances were put down by the cavalry without bloodshed." - The spaced hyphen should probably be an unspaced semicolon.

Constitutional controversy

"On 28 June 1837, King Ernest entered his new domain, passing under a triumphal arch." - Forgive me if I seem a little dim here, but this sentence surprised me because I did not see why Ernest would automatically become King of Hanover when William IV died. I had to look at William IV of the United Kingdom to learn that all of William's legitimate children had died. That ended half of my confusion. The other half has to do with the split between the monarchies of the United Kingdom and Hanover. I wondered why Victoria didn't become monarch of both until re-reading the lead and re-discovering the explanation there. The lead should contain nothing important that does not appear in the main text; thus, the explanation needs to be embedded in the main text. Or am I not seeing it?

Relations with Britain

"One decision the new King had was whether... " - Maybe "had to make" instead of plain "had"?

"Ernest remained heir presumptive to his niece. That status ended with the birth of the Queen's daughter, Victoria, in November 1840... " - This is another place that foreign readers might get confused. To them it might be puzzling to see the Queen's daughter called Victoria when it is the Queen they are likely to know as Victoria. Would it be helpful to change the first sentence to read, "Ernest remained heir presumptive to his niece, Queen Victoria. That status ended with the birth of the Queen's daughter, also named Victoria, in November 1840... "?

"Her ill-feeling towards the King increased when the King refused, and advised his two surviving brothers to similarly refuse, to give precedence to Prince Albert... ". - Wikilink precedence?

"The Act which naturalised Albert as a British subject left the question of his precedence unresolved." - I think "which" should be "that". I puzzled over this sentence because I did not know what "Act" referred to. What act? Why is "Act" capitalised here? Also, it would be helpful for foreign readers to have a little more background about Albert and his country of origin. Why, they may wonder, would he have to be naturalised?

"Shortly after the wedding, the King injured himself in a fall, with Albert writing to his brother, "Happily he fell over some stones in Kew and damaged some ribs." - Rather than using "with plus -ing", I'd re-cast this, perhaps as "Shortly after the wedding, when the King injured himself in a fall, Albert wrote to his brother, "Happily he fell over some stones in Kew and damaged some ribs."

"The monarchs engaged in one more battle - over jewels left by Queen Charlotte." - Another spaced hyphen. This one should probably be a spaced en dash.

Images

File:1771 Ernst August.JPG is tagged with a "factual accuracy" banner that needs to be addressed. An additional problem is that the source link is circular; it links merely to another copy of the image. Also, the image placement creates a text sandwich between itself and the infobox, and Ernst looks out of the page rather than in. If you can resolve the licensing issues and keep the image, it might be better to move it into the next section unless that seems to be too much of a content mismatch.

I have swapped for another image.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernstthaler.jpg would look better if positioned on the left so that Ernst looks into the page. You'd have to move it down too to avoid a head-bump on the left.

File:ErnstAugustK.jpg would probably be better moved down a bit to avoid bumping a third-level head.

Other

I'm not used to seeing so many capital letters on words like King, Queen, Throne, Duke, Act, and so on except when they part of a formal name such as Queen Victoria. Your use seems generally to be internally consistent, and so perhaps the caps are OK. They look a bit odd to a Yankee, is what I'm saying. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously what I need to do is spell out the succession better. The other points you mention are relatively minor. All will be taken care of by the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DrKiernan

This is a highly readable, and I think well-balanced, account.

Lead

I would like "ruled over" to be changed to "reigned in", as I would argue that it is Parliament that rules rather than the King.
"Ernest succeeded as fifth son" is at first confusing because it looks as though the sentence is describing his succession to the post of Fifth Son rather than his succession as King. How about: "As a fifth son, initially Ernest seemed unlikely to succeed, but Salic Law, which debarred women from the succession, applied in Hanover and none of his older brothers had a legitimate son."
"disfiguring wounds to the face", perhaps "a disfiguring facial wound"?

Early life

"with the cavalry" or "in the cavalry"?

Sellis incident

"awakening him" stuck me as odd, perhaps because of the tense. Can we have "...by his written account, he was awakened by being struck on the head several times." or "..several times while asleep in bed. Awakened, he ran for the door..."
I think the sources of the Sellis rumours should be made more explicit earlier in the paragraph, i.e. "Public rumour blamed Ernest for...", or change "Some stories.." to actually name the nineteenth-century originator first recorded to have told the story. Also, I believe I'm right in saying, though I could be wrong and you should probably check this, that the foreman of the jury in the Sellis case was the social reformer Francis Place, who was totally opposed to Cumberland politically but still found in his favour at the inquest.

You are absolutely correct. Place went to some trouble to get on that jury, which he managed even though the did not live in the immediate vicinity and the coroner had selected 12 good men and true (at Place's request, the coroner expanded it to 17).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I think you should be more specific about who said the princess had poisoned her husband.

Two sources say this occurred, none give any details. Will keep looking online.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politician

Can you stipulate in the footnote no. 52 the original observer who wrote "disappointed fiend"? (There's no need to put it in the article body but I would like to see who said it somewhere.)

Van der Kiste doesn't say, but a little research finds it to be Lord Ellenborough. However, as he was talking about the bill being fixed for third reading, rather than passed at third reading, I've taken it out. The Duke looking upset at the vote is interesting, the Duke looking upset at the vote being set is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"fresh rumours were spread": but spread where? In the newspapers or privately between individuals in society? "it was said": but by whom? A potential origin of the rumours is discussed later in the paragraph, but we're not told where the rumours were recorded. Earlier in the paragraph, The Times newspaper features prominently, which tends to imply that the rumours also appeared in that newspaper. Did they?
"widely rumoured that the Duke...", I would like to see a couple of examples of who mentioned the rumours given in the accompanying footnote. (Something like "Victoria's dairy, quoted in Bird, p. 217", or whatever sources Bird is using.)

Constitutional controversy

"only one of the seven..." begs the question: who was he?

Dahlmann, I think. I will have to check.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Relations with Britain[reply]

"supposed" by whom?

Notes

For reference 15 it is possible to show us the exact page by using Template:London Gazette.

Bibliography

You may wish to add ISBNs for FAC.

Images

The source of File:ErnstAugustK.jpg is wikipedia. I prefer to see artist and gallery details whenever possible.

Overall, it is absorbing and well-constructed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on these and post responses as I can. It is not always possible to say who started the rumours, but I can certainly mention what paper they were printed in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in at least some detail about each set of rumors. I think that's everything. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley I have only just noticed this article on the peer review list. I hope you will be keeping it open for a day or so, which would give me time to add my two-penn'orth. It's a splendid article and I should like to contribute if I can. Meanwhile, as a preliminary thought, you are inconsistent about capitalising job titles. In the military you have "as a colonel" followed by "promoted to Major-General". With royals you refer to "the prince" but "the King"; to "royal dukes" but "the Duke hurried…" Might be worth applying a consistent regime. More soonest. - Tim riley (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no hurry. I do not expect it to go to FAC for two to three weeks, as I presently have an article which will go before it. Thanks for helping out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]