Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur, Prince of Wales/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Arthur, Prince of Wales

[edit]

Arthur, Prince of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's death had a major impact on English history, and his article was a mess. I've edited it throughout the last week and now I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. Alex (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- the nominator has another FAC (Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil) undergoing review further down. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. I think this FAC should be formally withdrawn by the nominator. Then I can close it as "withdrawn" rather than "archived". Graham Colm (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were it withdrawn, I would be happy to try to find some time to offer a GA review. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All other things being equal Graham, I'd be inclined to treat this nom as a reasonable exception and let it stand (with a reminder to the nominator to seek leave per the instructions next time) because the other FAC does seem well on the way to promotion at this stage (I think the early oppose is probably moot). Similar to this instance. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nom has said that he is willing to withdraw this FAC. I agree with Ian, however -- the first FAC candidate is going quite well. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll make sure to pay more attention to the guidelines next time. Alex (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment The final section on "popular culture" needs to be referenced, and would work better as prose. While I've got no idea what the availability of references is like here, it's generally preferred for such sections to provide a thematic discussion of how the person is portrayed in popular culture at FA level, rather than simply listing works in which they've appeared. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great topic, worthy of FA, and I commend your efforts on the article. I think this would do better going through the good article process before FAC, as there are a few issues that could do with being ironed out.

  • The first sentence of the lead is a little unwieldy, and the second sentence strikes me as odd; "Arthur was viewed by contemporaries as the great hope of the Tudor dynasty, as his birth was a symbol of the end of the Wars of the Roses, during which his grand-uncle, Richard III, had died in battle." There wasn't really a "Tudor dynasty" at the time of his birth, as a Tudor had been on the throne for less than a year. "Great uncle" is more standard English than "grand uncle". I'm also unconvinced that everyone was agreed at the time of his birth that the Wars of the Roses were over; from our perspective, we can coherently claim that they weren't (Warbeck, Simnel and the rest). This point is unsourced, as it's not mentioned outside of the lead.
  • "and Henry's quest for a male heir, which ended with six marriages." It wasn't only his quest for a male heir that led to six marriages. It also strikes me as odd that you talk so much about Henry (junior) in the lead. Arthur's deeply interesting in his own right!
  • " Henry VII had royal genealogists trace his lineage back to the ancient British rulers, decided on naming his son after the legendary King Arthur;" This doesn't make sense
  • "packed off" is a little informal (that's also a very long sentence)
  • "Arthur's birth was greeted by French and Italian humanists" Unclear what is meant by "greeted" in this sense, and a link to Renaissance humanism would be helpful.
  • "Although Arthur's birth came only eight months after his parents' marriage, Sir Francis Bacon wrote that the Prince was born prematurely in the eighth month, but was "strong and able."" Why "Although"?
  • Why do you mention the fact he was Duke of Cornwall after talking about his becoming Prince of Wales, when he was, seemingly, Duke of Cornwall before Prince of Wales?
  • Presumably he didn't share a nursery with both Margaret and Henry? How about "with the latter of whom he shared a nursery"?
  • "Henry VII's former physician." How about "formerly Henry VII's physician"?
  • According to our articles, Thucydides and Terence are preferred spellings.
  • In the main article, you mention the popular belief in Arthur's ill health as being a present belief, but in the lead, it is implied that this was a contemporary belief.
  • "and handsome" I think this is inherently subjective, and I suspect every prince is going to be described as handsome; who said this?
  • ""delicate lad."" The full stop should be outside the quote marks, surely?
  • "In October 1492, he was named Keeper of England and King's Lieutenant during Henry VII's trip to France." How about "In October 1492, when his father travelled to France, he was named..."? Also, you don't need to link to our article on France.
  • The second paragraph has a lot of technical terms which are unexplained/unlinked
  • "as "my dearest spouse," wrote" Again, comma should be outside the quotes, surely?
  • "be "a true and loving husband," the" Again
  • To be "struck down" by an illness would probably mean to be killed by it.
  • News of the death reached Henry while Arthur was still alive?
  • ""Grief-stricken and emotional," he" Again!
  • "and "had ever preserved him," adding" Again
  • Why are you preserving archaic spelling when this was something said, rather than written? Perhaps you could say something like "[Whoever] recorded that Elizabeth said..."
  • Could we have more about Leviticus? This is the thing which ties the issue of Henry's divorce to Arthur.
  • "was "thirsty work," these" Comma
  • "dismissed by modern historians" What do you mean by "modern historians"? Surely what's important is that these were dismissed by Henry/Henry's people
  • I completely agree with the above comment about the popular culture section.

Always happy to see topics like this at FAC. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn:
  • I have hopefully fixed the "unwieldy" sentence. I've altered the second sentence and I've sourced the points that aren't mentioned in the article.
  • I don't talk about Henry too much, the three-line paragraph is there only to explain how Arthur's death affected the course of history. As far as I'm aware, Henry merely wanted to assure the continuation of the dynasty by marrying six times, except for his last wife.
  • Fixed.
  • I've split the sentence in two and I'v changed "packed off" to "sent".
  • Changed.
  • I've rewritten the sentence, hope it's alright now.
  • I wasn't specifically referring to Arthur as Prince of Wales, I was simply stating a time window with "after he was appointed PoW".
  • Marshall states that Arthur was brought up in the royal nurseries with both Margaret and Henry.
  • Changed.
  • Changed.
  • I've altered the lead, I hope it's alright now.
  • Gunn and Monckton write that Catherine was excited at the prospect of marrying such a handsome prince, so I suspect, from the context, that it was Catherine herself who described Arthur as such.
  • Changed.
  • Changed.
  • Hopefully, all terms are now explained.
  • Changed.
  • Changed.
  • I've changed it to "afflicted".
  • That was an error in writing, which is now fixed.
  • Changed.
  • Changed.
  • Changed.
  • I've added a note which explains Leviticus.
  • Changed.
  • I've re-read the sources and I've changed the sentence accordingly; the claims were indeed dismissed during Henry's divorce. Alex (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • @Nikkimaria, J Milburn, and Nick-D: I have altered the IPC section, I hope it better fits criteria now.
  • All abbreviations changed.
  • Changed.
  • I've changed all Lehman references and added references to books published by reliable publishing houses.
  • The book said "printed in Malaysia", but "published in New York"; I've modified the template. Alex (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text needs some work. A few Americanisms struck a jarring note at first read-through, and there is a fair bit of WP:OVERLINK. I'll look at the page again tomorrow and make such emendations or suggestions as I can. Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell
  • I note overlinking problems. Several names are linked twice (e.g. Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII, Margaret Beaufort, Mary I). Also, when you say "Arthur's education covered grammar, poetry, rhetoric and ethics and focused on history", it doesn't help the reader to link to grammar, poetry, etc., since they are common terms widely understood. Also, Virgil is linked as "Virgilian" and simply as "Virgil" in the same section. (Most other links look appropriate.)
  • The lead sources statements in the first paragraph (and just the first paragraph). According to MOS:LEAD, a lead should summarize all sections of the article without containing material not present in the body. As such, it is rarely necessary to city statements in the lead. Unless there are direct quotes or particularly contentious statements in the lead, it's best to source the statement only where it appears in the body, rather than in the lead itself. In this case, it looks rather awkward to have the first paragraph given references for uncontroversial statements, while the rest of the lead has none.
  • The last sentence of the lead is a little unwieldy. I think it would be clearer if it were broken up.
  • The "Early life and education" section quotes the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to describe... well, honestly, I'm not sure what it's describing. Since it's not a primary document, I think it would be more appropriate (and hopefully clearer!) to rephrase the statement in your own words.
  • In the same section, two sentences in a row use semicolons. It would be more fluid if one were reworded to avoid this. This happens again in the first two sentences of "legacy". Later down, there's a sentence in "legacy" with two semicolons! (And is "–;" correct in English grammar?) I've nothing against semicolons, but it can be a distraction when they are overused.
  • The last sentence of "Later life" is quite long and a bit confusing. The phrase "the latter of whom" (at word 52 of the 70-word sentence) is a bit awkward, and it isn't clear that you mean Gruffydd rather than Thomas. And besides, doesn't "latter" refer to the later of two? That sentence mentions three servants.
  • Since the phrase "canonical age" isn't in common use (at least not in my neighborhood), it would be good to link to Canonical age.
  • The source claims that 200,000 crowns is around 5 million pounds, not 5 million dollars.
  • The phrasing "Although [he said X], [he discovered Y]" implies that X and Y are in opposition in some way. But it's not clear how using different pronunciations of Latin is opposed to being "a true and loving husband".
  • I don't have access to the Weir 2008b source, but it supports the claim that "This is the only public bedding of a royal couple recorded in the 16th century." Are we sure there were no records of royal coupling of the Zhu (Ming leaders) in China, Ottoman Caliphs, Mughal dynasts, or other royals around the globe in the 16th century? Or does that statement just refer to Europe, or perhaps only to Britain? Without seeing the source, I can't be sure.
  • The first sentence of "popular culture" is very long, with nine commas, and it would be smoother if broken up.
  • I have made a number of minor rewordings for grammar or smoothness. If you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss.
I would like to withdraw the nomination. It's obvious that the article has many issues, and I'd like to get it past GA first.

-Alex (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2013 (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/Arthur,_Prince_of_Wales/archive1&oldid=1087434886"