Talk:Coronation of Queen Victoria/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting-looking article. Happy to review it. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Amitchell125:. Please note that I have limited availability at present due to family illness but I will try to look in each day and help you where I can. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'm happy to take the review as slowly as you like so that you don't feel under too much pressure. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has deteriorated considerably since No Great Shaker started tinkering with it earlier this year. The lead in particular is much worse. He now has a notice on his user page saying a family crisis has greatly reduced his ability to edit. User:Amitchell125, the "reviewer" has now done a considerable amount of editing (some of it also very mistaken), can no longer be considered independent, and should step down, and the nomination closed. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This article has improved considerably since No Great Shaker (NGS) began cleaning up the appalling mess created by the incompetent and arrogant Johnbod. The lead in particular is a significant improvement. While NGS now has a notice on his user page that a family crisis has greatly reduced his ability to edit, he still looks in when he can and remains keen to assist User:Amitchell125, who is doing an excellent job as an independent reviewer. The review should continue and NGS will be happy to address all questions raised by the reviewer in due course. Perhaps an administrator should be asked to consider the issue of copyright violation by Johnbod. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: No Great Shaker is now a blocked sockpuppet. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I want to amend the references, which are partly in their own section (Bibliography) and partly in the References section. WP:CITEVAR mentions the helpfulness of improving existing citations, and it would make sense to put the books together in one section. Let me know if you think that's a problem. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing

It's a very interesting article overall, and a lot of work has gone into it. I have made some amendments regarding the prose, and have been quite bold in places. Hope you don't mind, but it helps me as a reviewer if the text makes sense. Some of it still isn't right - I'll get back to you about those bits. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you've done is fine and does help reader understanding. Will be happy to help if you need to ask me anything. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, No Great Shaker, nearly ready to put out some comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

(one section at a time)

Lead section

balloon ascent' - unlink 'ascent', as the text should say 'hot air balloon ascent'.
link prime minister.
"cut-price" 1831 coronation - amend to 'William IV's "cut-price" coronation of 1831' (linking the king).
Consider adding the location of the paintings within the captions (I think it's courteous and of interest to readers, but it's no required), e.g. as shown on the left.

Background and planning

I think links are needed for: Queen Victoria; peerage; Buckingham Palace.
Amend Conservative (formerly Tory) Party - were they not commonly called the Tories at the time?
24 July and 18 August. - amend to '24 July and 18 August 1837' for greater clarity.
the Abbey - needs to be changed to 'Westminster Abbey' (with a link), as this is the first time it is mentioned in the main text.
Reference 2 (Worsley 2018, pp. 86–87) - imo p. 103 summarises their relationship better (p. 86+ only summarises Melbourne's character), so cite p. 103 instead.
Citation(s) needed for Until 1867, the Demise of the Crown ... ... 112 seats to 30.
Reference 6a (Worsley p. 95) gives the year 1660 (when Charles became king), but the text in the section states April 1661 (when he was crowned), so this citation (or the text in the section) needs to be changed.
Consider adding an image of Lord Melbourne, (like the one here).

Objections

Imo an image is needed (but not required) within this section, perhaps of the young queen, whose gender, youth and good looks were thought so important at the start of her reign. What about this famous portrait?
I would unlink utilitarianism, as it is within quoted text.
Change 'mother and namesake' to her name 'the Duchess of Kent' (she wasn't actually called Victoria like her daughter, and Victoria had two names, one of which was afterwards dropped).
Link gauntlet ('Gauntlet (glove)').
"shorn of majesty by Benthamite utilitarianism" and "exposed to the gaze of the populace" - these appear to be quotations, it so, who said them?
This would be a problem through the early years of Victoria's reign - I think it reads better if put as: 'This perception persisted during the earliest years of the reign…'
There are not enough citations for the second paragraph.
Consider using this (pp. 95-6) as the citation for the ballad - the whole ballad is included there, and it gives a great background reference for the reign).
On a commercial footing,' - imo not needed and so can be taken out.
There were generic objections to the coronation, which were based on… - why not more simply, 'Other objections to the coronation were based on…'?
,in contrast with her uncles, - requires a bit of clarification. You need to say briefly what it was about them that contrasted with Victoria (age/gender/politics, etc.).
Improve the grammar by amending 'published' to 'which was published'.
during the run-up to the day - ce to 'prior to the coronation' (or perhaps leave it out).
...trade unions and other groups… - what other groups are being referred to here?
In several manufacturing towns' - it is possible to be more specific about the groups being referred to?
Reference 3i (Strong) - I can't find why it is used to cite the article at this point (it could be me).
he asked the Queen to postpone the coronation until 1 August so that it could be carried out with "proper splendour". The text needs to be changed to reflect what Plunkett actually writes on p. 24, as he it isn't this.

Public procession and crowds

(This section needed copy-editing to the point where it was easier to do it myself - please feel free to make any minor changes if you see the need to make them.)

Ceremony in Westminster Abbey

link liturgical (liturgy).
unlink Lord Melbourne (already linked).
' [actually Lord Rolle] - remove this, then link Rolle and explain who he was (with ...the Queen went down a couple of steps to prevent Rolle from trying to climb them again).
Parris image cannot be verified - the correct image appears to be here.
p. 79 & 81 of Thursday 28th June 1838 in Queen Victoria's Journal are the sources for the quotes, and need to be included after the quote.
It needs to be clear that the 4 lines of the poem are only in fact an extract.
medals to the crowd - amend to 'medals to the pages'.

Victoria's account

This whole section has has to be deleted (see the Term and Conditions from the website the text originates from), as it violates copyright rules. See WP:CV101 and the note on the talk page. .

Public entertainment

Unlink Piccadilly (already linked).
Remove With the advent of railway travel into London, an estimated 400,000 visitors arrived for the event. - it is already included higher up in the text.

Return to the palace
Crown jewels and coronation robes
References
Bibliography
External links