Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II/GA4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an article, and, obviously, quite a topic. I'd love to see a good article on the queen, but, obviously, it's an article worth getting right. I am going to start by taking a look back at previous good article reviews. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some initial notes on the prose below. There are a number of other issues I want to check- the sourcing, categories and images, obviously, and I'd also like to see how some other encyclopedias tackle the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • I note that there have been repeated discussions about the need for the list of countries of which Elizabeth is monarch in the first sentence. I have my own opinion about the issue, but it's not really my place as a GA reviewer to express them. The current discussion on the issue does not look like it will conclude in any change.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is rather choppy, with short sentences. Also, the note about education seems rather odd when compared with the end of the previous paragraph. Perhaps it should open with a mention of her position on birth (IE, not in direct line for the throne?)
  • Expanded very slightly.
  • "she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" Unless I'm mistaken, this is incorrect, as he was not D of E until she married him? I see that I was mistaken.

Early life

[edit]
  • "house: 17 Bruton Street, Mayfair;" The use of a colon followed by a semi-colon is rather odd
  • Semi-colon removed.
  • What was the name of her maternal grandmother?
  • Cecilia. Rather than add this incidental point, I've added "paternal" to "Mary after her paternal grandmother".
  • Have you considered mentioning that the baptism was C of E? The religion of the monarch is obviously, historically, of great importance
  • Added "Anglican archbishop..."
  • "George V cherished his granddaughter, and during his serious illness in 1929 her regular visits raised his spirits and were credited with aiding his recovery." This line is perhaps not the most neutral. Are these his own words?
  • Two new sources added and re-phrased. On the first clause, Pimlott calls him "a doting old man" and quotes Mabell Airlie saying "Lilibet came first in his affections ... and loved to have her with him". Lacey says "he felt a special affection" for Elizabeth.
  • "Elizabeth's only sibling was Princess Margaret, born four years after Elizabeth" Clumsy phrase

Heiress presumptive

[edit]
  • "Elizabeth's father became king, and she became heiress presumptive, with the style Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth." Reference?
  • Added.
  • "Vice-Provost" Do we have an article on this? It's hardly the most familiar term.
  • Added link to list of provosts.
  • What precisely was her role in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service?
  • It was just honorary, but the training was real. She completed her training just two weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
  • "The idea was supported by Home Secretary Herbert Morrison but rejected by the King because he felt such a title belonged solely to the wife of a Prince of Wales" Comma after "Morrison"?
  • Added.
  • "fell in love with Philip" Again, whose words are these? This seems to be quite a declaration to make.
  • Do we know anything about the public reaction to the marriage? A line about that would be a welcome addition to the paragraph starting "The marriage was not without controversy"
  • Quote from Crawford added.
  • "Ronald Storrs claimed that another notable absentee, Elizabeth's aunt, Mary, Princess Royal, refused to attend because her brother Edward, the former king, was not invited; she gave ill health as the official reason for not attending." The fact Edward was not invited is surely worth more of a mention than that subclause?
  • Switched the order so he comes first.
  • "a royal and princely status to which they otherwise would not have been entitled" Why not?
  • Reason added.
  • "A second child, Princess Anne, was born in 1950." I know it's obvious, but... Reference?

Reign

[edit]
  • Again, sorry- "In 1960, she married Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon. They were divorced in 1978. She did not remarry." Reference?
  • Added.
  • "Instead, Parliament was opened by Royal Commission, and the Lord Chancellor delivered the speech from the throne." Ref?
  • Cut.
  • "and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike," We must have some articles to link to here?
  • Two links added.
  • "Intense media interest in the opinions and private lives of the royal family during the 1980s led to a series of sensational stories in the press,[98] not all of which were entirely true." Some examples?
  • "The Queen was reportedly worried that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions, and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike, and Thatcher's refusal to apply sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.[fn 4] Thatcher reputedly said the Queen would vote for the Social Democratic Party—Thatcher's political opponents.[102] Despite such speculation, Thatcher later conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen on film[103] and in her memoirs.[104] Further belying reports of acrimony between them, after Thatcher's replacement by John Major, the Queen gave two honours in her personal gift to Thatcher: the Order of Merit and the Order of the Garter.[105] She also attended Thatcher's 70th and 80th birthday parties.[106]" These paragraphs do not seem to give any credence to the view that the Thatcher/Elizabeth relationship was less than friendly.
  • Well, there's your example of not entirely true reporting! Seriously though, I'm reluctant to add an example because there's a danger the paragraph will become bloated by claims and counterclaims. There is a source saying some of the reports were false and no source saying all the reports were true, so the statement "not all of which were entirely true" is representative of the sources. As soon as you start saying "Edward wasn't gay" or "Koo Stark didn't steal from Buckingham Palace", someone else resourceful enough can come along and provide a source (the original reports) that implies he was or that states she did.
  • Maybe my own view of the matter is skewed, then- I'm more than happy to defer to you. Are you saying, then, that the overwhelming consensus among historians/analysts is that the Thatcher/Elizabeth relationship was as strong as any PM/monarch relationship? J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that the overwhelming consensus is that she has always been scrupiously impartial, and never exceeded constitutional boundaries. I'm not saying either way that their relationship was cold or warm; and the sources do not assist in deciding. We can only say what is reported, what is speculated, what is denied and what their public actions were.
  • "to patch up their differences." Colloquial
  • Changed to "reconcile".
  • Sometimes you italicise "annus horribilis", sometimes you do not
  • Corrected, apart from a title that isn't italicized.
  • "The year ended with a lawsuit as the Queen sued The Sun newspaper for breach of copyright when it published the text of her annual Christmas message two days before its broadcast. The newspaper was forced to pay her legal fees, and donated £200,000 to charity.[119]" I did not know that. I'm learning. :)
  • "media speculated whether the Jubilee would be a success or a failure." I think that should be "as to whether...".
  • Added.
  • "Though Elizabeth has enjoyed good health throughout her life" Had?
  • Shortened as part of the chop back below.
  • I get the distinct impression that the queen's relationship with Tony Blair is barely mentioned
  • It's considerably more than many of the other 150 prime ministers she's had. I think it'd be undue weight to expand much further, and to be honest, is there much more to be said?
  • "The last visit by a British monarch was in 1911, before Irish independence in 1922." Reference?
  • Removed as part of the chop back below.
  • "Elizabeth plans to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, marking 60 years as Queen. She could become the longest-reigning monarch in the history of any of her realms and the longest-reigning queen regnant in world history (surpassing Queen Victoria, who celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897) if she reigns for another 1471 days, until 10 September 2015." Unreferenced paragraphs don't look good
  • Removed as part of the chop back below.
  • I worry that the article is suffering from a degree of recentism. The section on the 2000s is approaching twice the length of the section on the 1990s which, what with the death of Diana and such, is surely of greater significance.
  • Definitely an improvement. Now, I'll leave this up to you, but, looking at "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ... victims of the 11 September attacks.[142][143]", I'd be inclined to say that the Ireland visit is more important. This is all comparatively standard stuff for the queen- Canada, compliments and remembrance- but the first state visit to Ireland (in the wake of years of near-enemity) seems to be something of an enormous event. Obviously, it's very hard for us to judge its lasting significance due to its incredibly recent nature, but it just seems to be far more important. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public perception and character

[edit]
  • There is a degree to which this section just feels like a repetition of the more carefully written sections previous.
  • We usually end the royal articles with a "Legacy" section of how the monarch is perceived by biographers and history. This is our attempt to do a similar thing here.
  • "Under pressure from public opinion, she began to pay income tax for the first time" This implies it was her choice- earlier in the article, you imply that she was forced to.
  • She wasn't forced into it, but there was public pressure. In the earlier section, we say "planned for at least a year" to imply that it was a long-term plan not just something that came as a result of Diana's death.
  • "referendums" referenda?
  • Changed.
  • "– are owned by the Sovereign in trust for the nation, and cannot be sold or owned by Elizabeth in a private capacity." Ref? Is there any similar land in other states?
  • Added a ref, but I'm not keen on adding information about Crown land. I think we're moving away from a biography in the "Finances" section.
@DrKiernan 190.46.80.76 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKiernan 190.46.80.76 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elizabeth has received honours and awards from countries around the world, and has held honorary military positions throughout the Commonwealth, both before and after her accession." Ref? An inline link to the list would be good here.
  • Personally, I'd say it was a style she is known by, rather than an actual title. At the time of William the Conqueror, titles were not hereditary by primogeniture in the way they are now: power could be acquired by conquest or passed to younger or illegitimate sons instead of the eldest. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other encyclopedias

[edit]

I'm taking a look at other encyclopedia entries on Elizabeth, the logic being that, as shorter articles written by professional writers, anything they include should be included here. Take it or leave it, I'm just leaving some thoughts. It goes without saying that this article is far superior to theirs. (I can provide the citations if you want to reference these pages in particular.) J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbia Encyclopedia
  • "At age 18 she was made a State Counsellor, a confidante of the king."
  • Added.
  • Describes her as "formal and unemotional" in public.
  • Points out the fact that '92 was her 40th year on the throne
  • That's in the article already.
  • Apparently was the richest woman in England
  • I think there's sufficient coverage of her wealth, and the disputed estimates.
The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography
  • In education, "She particularly enjoyed history, languages and music"
  • Mentions how "her ‘walkabouts’ have become a traditional part of such occasions" referring to her tours
  • Added.
  • "She takes a particular interest in Commonwealth Affairs, and intervened directly (an extremely unusual step) in the aftermath of the coup in Fiji in 1987." This point isn't mentioned in this article at all- seems to be something of an omission.
Chambers Biographical Dictionary
  • "The Queen has aimed to modernize the monarchy and make it more informal, introducing luncheon parties for distinguished individuals and pioneering royal walkabouts" Again, this seems to be an element missed
The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather guide
  • Also mentions the State Counsellor thing- "and by an amendment to the Regency Act she became a state counsellor on her 18th birthday."
The Penguin Biographical Dictionary of Women
  • Opens with the claim that "Elizabeth II has set out to continue and strengthen the reputation for royal dignity and sense of responsibility established so successfully by her father. She has continued his efforts to adapt Victorian ideas of monarchy to fit the expectations of modern times."
  • Again, "developed a liking for history, languages, and music"
A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present
  • "Elizabeth had a close relationship with her father, who prepared her for the succession by making her a State Counsellor at the age of 18"
  • "The queen appeared to meet Bagehot's requirements in The English Constitution (1865) for a monarch who was an exemplar of family life, a moral example and also a religious figurehead (she was head of the Church of England). Yet Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, said in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby that he grew up feeling 'emotionally estranged' from his mother, craving affection which she seemed 'unable or unwilling to offer'."
Marquis Who's Who in the World
  • "Awards: Named one of The World's Most Influential People, TIME mag., 2007, 100 Most Powerful Women, Forbes mag., 2007—09 Achievements: Achievements include fluent speaker of French"

That's all for now. I checked a few others, but they didn't have anything that wasn't already covered. I also intend to check Britannica, but I do not currently have access. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • First of all, there are an awful lot of unwarranted italics. Article titles do not need to be italicised like book titles- instead, they should be in speech marks.
  • Removed.
  • "Daily Mail, 15 March 1929" Can we have a little more than this? Author? Title? Page number?
  • Replaced.
  • "Quoted in Brandreth, p. 105; Lacey, p. 81 and Shawcross, pp. 21–22" Format seems inconsistent
  • Changed.
  • "Assheton, Ralph (18 December 1936), The Times: 10" Again, article title?
  • Added.
  • "Official website of the British Monarchy" versus "Royal Household"
  • Made consistent.
  • "Archive:Children's Hour: Princess Elizabeth, BBC, 13 October 1940, retrieved 22 July 2009" I don't see why "Archive" is italicised
  • Changed.
  • "London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 36973. p. 1315. 6 March 1945. Retrieved 5 June 2010." Why not format this like other newspaper articles? Again, title of the article would be good
  • "London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 37205. p. 3972. 31 July 1945. Retrieved 5 June 2010." Again
  • "London Gazette: no. 38128. p. 5495. 21 November 1947. Retrieved 27 June 2010." Again. There may be others, but I won't list them.
  • All three retained but formatting of other cites changed to match.
  • "Davies, Caroline (20 April 2006), Philip, the one constant through her life, London: Telegraph Media Group, retrieved 23 September 2009" Seems very odd to mention the Telegraph Media Group but not the newspaper.
  • Changed.
  • Books in footnotes are formatted inconsistently with the books in the bibliography. Examples: "Bradford, Sarah (1989), King George VI, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 424, ISBN 0297796674" and "Petropoulos, Jonathan (2006), Royals and the Reich: the princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany, Oxford University Press, p. 363, ISBN 0195161335", but there are others. The way you format the books in the bibliography is much neater.
  • Changed.
  • "Briggs, Asa (1995), The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, 4, Oxford University Press, pp. 420 ff., " What's going on there?
  • Changed.
  • ""Elizabeth II touring India". Amritt. Retrieved 22 May 2011." What is Amritt, and why is it reliable? Also, be consistent with whether full stops are given after retrieval dates.
  • Removed.
  • "Heinricks, Geoff (29 September 2000), "Trudeau: A drawer monarchist", National Post: B12" This is an example of how newspaper articles would be best cited
  • Be consistent as to whether you give publisher locations for books/newspapers. Also, consistency as to whether publishers of newspapers are listed (and how) would be good. I wouldn't bother with newspaper publishers- if people really care, they can check the article on the paper.
  • Publishers removed.
  • "Thatcher to Brian Walden quoted in Neil, Andrew (1996), Full Disclosure, London: Macmillan, p. 207, ISBN 0333646827
  • Andrew Neil quoted in Woodrow Wyatt's diary of 26 October 1990 (Wyatt, Woodrow; Edited by Sarah Curtis (1999), The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt: Volume II, London: Macmillan, p. 372, ISBN 0333774051)" Check that- there seem to be a couple of minor problems
  • Both checked.
  • "Bridcut, John (Producer) (2002), Queen and Country (Documentary), BBC" Could this citation be expanded a little? No chance of referencing the material elsewhere? Also, "(Documentary)" needn't have an uppcase d, nor be italicised
  • Cut.
  • "Whittaker, Thomas (14 December 2006), "Corgi put the queen in plaster", The Sun (London), retrieved 18 August 2011" Must you reference The Sun?
  • "Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 6 July 2010, retrieved 6 July 2010" Publisher?
  • Added.
  • Be consistent as to whether you list publishers as the Mail Online or the Daily Mail. I'd go for the latter. If the former, italics aren't needed.
  • Done.
  • "UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Lawrence H. Officer (2010) "What Were the UK Earnings and Prices Then?" MeasuringWorth." Accessdate?
  • "The Times, 9 July 1971. Colville was her former private secretary and a director of her bank, Coutts (Pimlott, p. 401)." Again, could the newspaper citation be expanded?

Another look through

[edit]

This article's really shaping up. Unless I see something striking very soon, I am fairly sure I will be promoting it.

  • Queen Mary is mentioned in para 2 of "Succession", but she's introduced in para 4.
  • Thanks. Amended.
  • I still think the sections in the '90s-00s need touching up a little, with regards to ensuring that important details are included, while more trivial details are not. I'm happy with them for the purposes of GAC, but I think they will need revisiting before any future FAC.
  • I'm not sure I've got the courage to take this to FAC just yet.
  • A thought about references- again, not something about which I am concerned here, but something which may be worth thinking about for FAC. Sometimes, you group multiple references into a single footnote- other times, you have multiple footnotes grouped together
  • I've tried bundling those together.

This is about there, I think. I still wonder about including some of the details from other encyclopedias (perhaps something to revisit before any future FAC) but I'm happy to go with your judgement for now. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm promoting the article now- brilliant work. I hope, firstly, you can keep such a highly-viewed article in such a good state, and, secondly, that this will someday be ready for FAC again. Good luck, and well done! J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/GA4&oldid=1111150759"