Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 18:46, 21 May 2010 [1].

Elizabeth II

Nominator(s): KingOfTheLynn (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is well written and perfectly accurate, and is among one of the best articles on Wikipedia. KingOfTheLynn (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you consulted with primary authors of the article, such as DrKiernan (talk · contribs), before nominating, as required by FAC instructions? Ucucha 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One concern that I would like to raise over the article is the prose and focus in the lead.

Prose: The first sentence is unwieldy because of the long list of realms. This has been discussed before on the talk page, inconclusively, because it is difficult to see how it can be changed without creating a new problem. If we remove some of the smaller realms where do we draw the line? If we remove all the realms and use a single term "Commonwealth realms", does the lead become less understandable? One possibility is for the first sentence to select one of the realms only such as: "Elizabeth II is the queen regnant of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, and Head of the Commonwealth." However, many editors of the page will disagree with this, understandably so, because they have a good case for inclusion of the other realms.

I agree that queen of UK and Commonwealth realms is enough, the list is a big WP:UNDUE in the lead, IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus: As discussed on the talk page before, I would like to see "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" removed from the lead. While it is true that as the Head of State of the United Kingdom she is the ceremonial head of the established Church of England, she actually holds no power in the Church, makes no decisions for the Church, and has performed no actions of special significance in or for the Church, or made any controversial or particularly notable statements regarding the Church. In my opinion, singling out one of her many ceremonial roles as Head of State of the United Kingdom places undue weight on that role. There is no reason why this function of the Head of State should be given precedence in the lead, because she is not known for her role in or active in the running of the Church. She is not known as a religious figure or leader: she is known as the Head of State of 32 countries and the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth.

If this nomination does attract reviews, I'm sure that I and the other editors of the page will do our best to respond positively and constructively to comments. However, it is only fair to point out that even changes that reviewers might consider minor could require substantial discussion before implementation. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~: If this nomination is going to remain open, let me just say: the reference style is bizarre. Why separate each print source from one another, and in turn separate those from the rest of references? I see no reason for it, and have never seen such usage in an FA before -- correct me if I'm wrong, but even if I am, yuck. I suggest creating a separate bibliography, in which each print source's bibliographic details are given in full. You can then note the shorthand footnote citation in the one "Reference" section, implementing Harvard, in which each shorthand cite is linkable to the bibliographic record, or just keep it bare text (which is how I personally handle such things; the less code the better for me), but anything is better than the current setup. To have the online citations separated from the print is inelegant and confusing, IMO. María (habla conmigo) 12:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it bare text. I hate Harvard style; it just creates a mass of pointless blue links and adds template load to the page. DrKiernan (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I prefer it, as well; much better presentation, nice work. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening prose issues in the lead.

English really is capable of ugliness, isn't it. "regnant"? Sorry, but it sticks out as unattractive and unknown to almost all readers (me included) without hitting the link and reading its opening at least twice. Could this distinction with queen consort not be made later in the article?
So the Crown possesses Canada, does it? I think many people might find this statement a little bizarre, even if there might be an arcane legalistic argument for this concept.
"Shared monarchy" is a bit hard to understand without dwelling on it. Who shares what?
Is she supreme governor of the whole of the Church of England, worldwide, or only in the UK? I've been roundly corrected for assuming the former.
Infobox: I've tried before but been howled down: I find "[date] – present" very clunky and unfortunate in its emphasis of a moving target that we are not always quick to update. This is endemic in pop culture bio articles. Is there anything wrong with "Since [full date]"?
In 1926, the US wasn't vying with the British Empire as "the world's formost power", given the American role in WWI?
Couple of bumpy places, like this: "Elizabeth married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in 1947, and"—consider removing the comma after the full name (before "in", here). There's another example previously in the lead. And there's another here: "the private lives of their children were subject to great press attention, and contributed to increased discontent with the monarchy, which reached its peak on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997." I presume these assertions are well-referenced in the body of the article ... and should it be "were the subject of"?
Oh, I see "in order to", which makes me want to do a Hitler salute. Just "to", please.
Some good images, I must say. Needs a prose run-through, and it's just a little bit like there's a carrot stuck up the article's ass. How rude is that. Sorry! Tony (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"regnant" removed. I suspect it will be restored.I was right. It lasted for exactly three minutes.
Possession of Canada removed.
"Shared monarchy": not addressed yet.
She is supreme governor only in the UK: made explicit.
Infobox: implemented: let's hope it sticks here.
"the world's foremost power", changed to " a pre-eminent world power"
"Elizabeth married Prince Philip...": sentences simplified. The assertions are referenced in the body of the article. Should it be "were the subject of"?: possibly.
"in order to": changed.
The carrot won't be easy to shift: it's wedged in. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My initial concern was that the nominator has 0 edits to the article and no evidence of previous interest in it, despite a eulogistic nom statement. Are the regular editors satisfied that the article, as it now is, fulfils all the FA criteria? Assuming that they are, perhaps they would comment on the choice of the texts that form the bibliography: the egregious Crawfie, Brandreth, Jennie Bond - these are not historians of substance. Ben Plimlott is, yet he is relegated to Further Reading. The popular writers and magazine journalists have their place but frankly, in an encyclopedia article on the long-time Head of State of a major Western country, I would have expected a greater weighting towards scholarship. From a glance at the sources there is a sense of Elizabeth-lite. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.