Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom/archive2

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2018 [1].

Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It all started in 2015, when I stumbled upon a neglected article and remembered that I had a Crown Jewels tourist guide which I could use to improve it. At first, it seemed like an easy enough subject – how wrong I was! There is more to the Jewels than I could have ever thought possible. And so began a 2½-year mission to distill everything there is to know about the Crown Jewels into a Featured Article on Wikipedia. One source led to another, my desk filled up with books, and at times I felt like walking away, but I persevered; slowly but surely, the Jewels gave up their secrets. The end result is a comprehensive, demystifying, and unpretentious article that is both factual and engaging whilst conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Discerning use has been made of journals, books, websites, news articles, and podcasts. All images are in the public domain. I will be happy to answer queries and make any amendments as necessary to satisfy the Featured Article criteria. Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Having finished the first half of a preliminary read-through I quite expect to be supporting the promotion of this article, but for now there are a few points needing attention. Most of them could have been avoided if the nominator had taken the advice given at the failed FAC two years ago to take the article to peer review. Better to have such nitpicking as follows done and dusted before presenting an article for FAC.

I'll need at least two goes at this with more than 9,000 words to check. These comments cover the text down to the end of the Crowns section.

  • General
    • metric/imperial measures: better to be consistent about which comes first: at present we have, e.g., 79.5 ounces (2.25 kg) but 187 kilograms (412 lb) and so on.
    • Links to main articles: I was surprised not to find "Main article: so-and-so" at the start of e.g. the St Edward's Crown section, but if you feel that a blue-link within the text suffices, I shall not press the point.
  • Lead
    • "the coronation regalia is" - but "regalia" is (rightly) treated as a plural noun after this point.
    • Capitalisation: unclear why the job title Head of State needs capitals; likewise head of the armed forces.
    • Kings – not sure why Edward the Confessor is just Edward the Confessor and Edward VII is just Edward VII but Charles II is King Charles II.
  • Early history
    • We don't want both BCE/CE and BC/AD: the MoS bids us use one or the other but not both. (The first always strikes me as a touch precious: if, as you evidently feel, it needs explaining, why use it rather than sticking to the familiar BC/AD?)
  • Middle Ages
    • "By the 5th century, the Romans had withdrawn from Britain" – needs a tweak, I think. The date usually given for the end of Roman rule in Britain is 410, and so this probably ought to read "By the early 5th century". Similarly, the Anglo-Saxons had not begun to settle in Britain by the 5th century, but rather during it.
  • Edward the Confessor
  • Late Middle Ages
    • "were moved … due to a series…" – I follow Fowler's dictum that "due to" – unlike "owing to" – has not won a prescriptive right to be treated as though it had become a compound pronoun. That use is acceptable in American English, I believe, but is better avoided in English articles.
  • Tudor and early Stuart periods
  • Restoration to present day
    • "the Dutch ambassador organised for extant jewels pawned in Holland to be brought back" – this reads rather oddly. Does it mean that he arranged for them to be brought back?
    • "During World War II, as in the First World War" – very strange wording; the American form "World War I/II" or the English form "the First/Second World War" are both acceptable, but banging one next to the other like this looks weird.
      • On reflection I have deleted all mention of the First World War because the source implies (by saying the boxes were damp and mouldy on their return to the Jewel House), but does not expressly state, that they were stored in the basement. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-coronation crowns
    • "the British constitution prohibits the removal of Crown Jewels from the United Kingdom" – we could do with a citation for this statement; the article on the crown says that such a removal was prohibited by law, which is not at all the same as the constitution.

More to follow. – Tim riley talk 11:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

I seem to be in less carping mood today – perhaps it's the heat – but I found little to complain about in the second half of the article.

  • Ampulla
    • "The same oil was used to anoint all kings and queens" implies recycling. I assume you mean oil from the same batch.
  • Sceptres
    • Unless they have been remade subsequently, I think "two sceptres originally made for Mary of Modena" should ,for clarity, lose the adverb.
  • Banqueting plate
    • The statement and the date don't square with each other in "It was made in 1829 for George IV but completed after his death": as he died in 1830 it cannot have been made the year before and completed in 1830 or later. Perhaps "commissioned" rather than "made"?
  • Ownership, management and value
    • He or she also accompanies… the Crown Jeweller, presumably, but we've had experts from the BM since the last mention of the Crown Jeweller.
  • Duplicate links
Across the whole piece there's a helluva lot of WP:OVERLINKing. There are duplicate links within the main body of the text to:
  • amethyst
  • ampulla
  • Buckingham Palace
  • chalice
  • Commonwealth
  • dalmatic
  • Elizabeth I
  • English Reformation
  • fleur-de-lis
  • foot washing
  • Fred, Prince of Wales
  • garnets
  • George VI
  • globus cruciger
  • Henry IV
  • Herny V
  • Honours of Scotland
  • House of Lords
  • James I
  • James II
  • Keeper of the Jewel House
  • knighthood
  • Koh-i-Noor
  • Mary of Modena
  • Oliver Cromwell
  • paten
  • Richard III
  • Royal Collection
  • St Edward's Crown
  • St George
  • The Queen Mother
  • Tudor rose
  • Windsor Castle
There are three links apiece to
  • Charles II
  • Edward VII
  • Mary II
  • Westminster Hall
  • William III
And Queen Victoria weighs in at four links.
  • Alt text
    • Mostly in place, but missing for the 1631 picture of Charles I and the head of Sovereign's Sceptre with Cross.

These few points conclude my comments. I have enjoyed this article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. – Tim riley talk 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I have addressed all your comments, but I think some link repetition is fine; 99.9% of people aren't going to read a 9,500-word article in its entirety, and a person reading the altar plate section may not have seen 'chalice' in the section about Edward the Confessor, for example. Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Just so, and whatever the MoS says, I am with you on providing links where they seem likely to be useful, rather than rigidly rationing them. I do a lot of "Life and Works" biographical articles, and I have so far got away at FAC with having identical links from both the Life and the Works sections.
I much enjoyed this article, which I was surprised to see is 9,000 words long. It didn't seem like it, and is an easy and pleasurable read. I support on prose: clear, to the point, evidently comprehensive, and broadly and fully cited. (I'll be happy to do a source review if nobody else does one in the next week or so.) Just the sort of article people look for in Wikipedia, I think. Bravo! – Tim riley talk 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Coronation_Chair_and_Stone_of_Scone._Anonymous_Engraver._Published_in_A_History_of_England_(1855).jpg: the UK tag used requires that you detail steps taken to try to ascertain authorship
  • File:Queen_Victoria_in_Her_Coronation_Robes.jpg needs a more specific source

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now.... and the collection is the most historically complete of any regalia in the world. - oh yes? I am dubious about this sentence meaning anything much at all. A 2-piece set with the 2 original piences would be ....more complete?? (Actually it probably isn't that complete as almost all teh original pieces were melted down!) I'd remove it as it sounds puffy and vague. Cas Liber (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the originals were melted down in 1649; but they were remade in 1660–61. Firebrace (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but the point is that the phrase is puffy and doesn't mean anything much and should be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Most complete" refers to the whole 140-piece collection known as the Crown Jewels. For example, there are 250 years' worth of consort crowns and the sceptres used by English and British queens consort since the Restoration (which are replicas of those lost in the Interregnum). By comparison, the crown and sceptre presented to wives of kings at Scottish coronations are missing from the regalia of Scotland, as are the sovereign's robes and spurs. Firebrace (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I still think the phrase adds very little, if anything, but will defer to consensus. If other folks think it's ok I won't view it as a deal-breaker. 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • ....thereby establishing the first known set of hereditary coronation regalia in Europe - a primary source supporting this. Pretty bold claim which needs a better source.
  • At some point in the 14th century, all of the state regalia were moved to the White Tower at the Tower of London owing to a series of successful and attempted thefts in a part of Westminster Abbey that housed state regalia - there are two "state regalia s here. Can we just say "their location in Westminster Abbey" or "the part of Westminster Abbey that housed them"...

I should add that the prose so far is good - all I am saying is that it is good to let the facts speak for themselves (and the reader be duly impressed) without adding puffy (and possibly incorrect) interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (1992) is a secondary source. Per the book, "The Author of this book alone is responsible for the statements made and the views expressed, which are not necessarily those endorsed by the Historic Royal Palaces or HMSO". Firebrace (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look through google scholar - nothing much around so will let it slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebrace: I think MOD has some valid points - this can happen when the source material is written in an effusive way. Not insurmountable but you can miss it if you've been staring at it for weeks.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

Thanks. I oppose on prose based on this sampling of the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for Martin Swift?
  • FN136: link is dead
  • Should provide full citations to chapters/sections in edited works
  • FN123, 127: page formatting, check for others
All fixed apart from adding manual links to RCT which I think unnecessary. Firebrace (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over a month now. We have one support, an oppose and slight concerns from Casliber. I'm pretty sure the issues could be overcome, but after a month and no clear consensus to promote, I think this article is better worked on away from FAC. Leaving it open is unlikely to bring about a consensus within the timeframe of a normal FAC (even if the oppose were struck, we are still not close) and this would probably just sink down the list. Therefore I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2018 (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/Crown_Jewels_of_the_United_Kingdom/archive2&oldid=858688018"