Wikipedia:Peer review/Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon[edit]

"Good article". Now requesting peer feedback. Please note that the article is LONG. DrKiernan 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really, not enough prose to call long. I would say the article, down to the ==Death== section is overall well-written and comprehensive. However, and as noted, the rest of the article needs a major clean-up. The 'quips' section is funny trivia, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia (except maybe sprinkled here and there or rolled-into a general 'public image and perception' section where the anecdotes are used as examples of such and such image of the Queen mum - read on). Also, kill the list in the ==Criticism== section, rename it to something more NPOV like ==Public perception and image== and add both the good and bad. Do that, and I think you have a good chance at FAC. --mav 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's great, thanks. I've re-written the final sections. But they still need a little work (for example, I've noticed there's a comment which needs a citation). DrKiernan 09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reference added (and text amended accordingly). DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

  • "Criticisms" and "Reported quips" need changing from their listiness into smooth, cohesive prose which tie the respective sections as their wholes. They need intros and then their main parts all tied together. LuciferMorgan 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was said that her popularity was on account of her coming from a more common background than that of past Queens."

Said? By who? Name this individual or these people. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, I can't find that statement in my copy of Fraser (the book has gone through many editions and revisions, so I can't tell which one the editor who added that comment was using). Consequently, as we don't know who said what when, I've removed the sentence. DrKiernan 10:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward."

Can you cite the fact that the Canadian and U.S. public were extremely enthusiastic please? Unless cited, someone can deem it original interpretation. LuciferMorgan 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The widowed queen also oversaw the restoration of the remote Castle of Mey on the Caithness coast of Scotland, which later became her favourite home."

Can you cite the fact it was her favourite home please? LuciferMorgan 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I can't! So I've changed that. DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the marriage of Diana Spencer to Prince Charles, and after Diana's death, the Queen Mother, known for her charm and theatrical flair, was by far the most popular member of the British Royal Family."

On what are these opinions based? Polls? Can you cite these opinions please? namely as concerns her popularity and that she was known for her charm and theatrical flair. LuciferMorgan 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Opinion polls are cited in Ezard's obituary, but not "theatrical flair", which I've changed to "public charm". DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, her thwarting of the ambitions of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (albeit considerably less forthrightly than that of Queen Mary), and by her sheer endurance. In her later years, she became known for her longevity. Her birthdays became times of celebration and, as a popular figure, she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole."

Every sentence in that paragraph needs an individual citation for all of its numerous claims. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added (apart from the middle bit which I've removed). DrKiernan 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Queen Mother's honours were read out at her funeral, held in the United Kingdom, as follows: "Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lady of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Lady of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India, Grand Master and Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom had been conferred the Royal Victorian Chain, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Relict of His Majesty King George the Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness."
Can you cite, at the end of the paragraph, the source which reprinted this reading please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you citate the "Centenarian" subsection please, especially as concerns the Royal family expressing concern at her fall and the Queen Mother insisting on standing up? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've re-written that section. DrKiernan 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although legally Edward could have married Mrs Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that if he rejected their advice that he forbear to marry Mrs Simpson they would be obliged to resign: this would have led to a general election and irreparably ruined his status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice."
Which ministers? Where does the general election conclusion etc. at the end come from? - to arrive at a conclusion is a summary of the effects, and therefore someone / some people must have arrived at this. Can you citate this please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All except one member of the British cabinet (Duff Cooper) were opposed to the marriage, as were at least the majority of the Dominion Prime Ministers. If I put in the ministers' names, it would have to either be a long-list, including the Dominions, or only Baldwin, which would lead to accusations of UK-centrism. I would rather not go to into too much detail in this article, as Elizabeth played no part in the abdication (she was conveniently suffering from 'flu throughout the entire crisis). The information is only included in order to provide context. I have altered the wording slightly (as a general election would have been unlikely since the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties were all opposed to the marriage), and provided a reference. DrKiernan 15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

Another nice article on the British royal family. I'm glad that someone is taking the time to fill these out. Here are my suggestions.

  • Could you expand the lead a bit? The lead, as I understand it, is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD
  • The location of her birth remains uncertain, but reputedly she was born in her parents' London home at Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens, or in a horse-drawn ambulance on the way to hospital. - This needs to be an "either...or" sentence.
  • On her fourteenth birthday, Britain declared war on Germany (See: World War I). - perhaps the link to World War I could be piped to "declared war"?
  • Do we really know nothing about her childhood at all?
    • I’ve expanded that section. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Elizabeth changed her mind and married Prince Albert?
    • No. I believe everything written on that subject so far is supposition, although there are various theories. Apparently, she was always very cagey about it, and refused to acknowledge ever saying no in the first place. I don’t know of any reliable sources for why she changed her mind. I think Sarah Bradford said it might have been because she waited for him to ask her personally (previously he’d only asked through intermediaries), Hugo Vickers admits point blank that we can only guess. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although legally Edward could have married Mrs. Simpson and remained king, his ministers advised him that the people would never accept her as queen and indeed that they would be obliged to resign if he insisted; this would have dragged the King into a general election thus ruining irreparably his status as a politically neutral constitutional Monarch. - This sentence or one like it belongs in your Edward VIII article. It makes the reasons for abdication clearer.
    • Yes, you’re right. It was missing from the lead section of Edward VIII, where I’ve put it in. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the ex-king and his wife were created Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Elizabeth supported George VI's decision to withhold from Simpson the style of Royal Highness.[13] She was later quoted as referring to the Duchess as "that woman". - it is a little unclear who you are referring to in these sentences - the pronoun referents are unclear
    • Right. I’ve amended that paragraph. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian portion of the tour was extremely extensive, from coast to coast and back — they also briefly detoured into the United States, visiting the Roosevelts in the White House and at their Hudson River Valley estate — and the royal couple's reception by the Canadian and U.S. public was extremely enthusiastic, dissipating in large measure any residual feeling that George and Elizabeth were in any way a lesser substitute for the charismatic Edward. - the "extremely's" are unnecessary
    • I’ve rewritten that section in order to shorten the sentence. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During World War II, the King and Queen became symbols of the nation's resistance. Shortly after the declaration of war, The Queen's Book of the Red Cross was conceived: the book was ready for printing in two months. - explain book for the uninitiated
  • There are some missing citations in this article. The "Centenarian" and "Death" sections in particular are light. Moreover, the article starts to sound POV without them. Other reviewers have mentioned this as well, I think.
    • I think there's just one paragraph now that needs citations - on the funeral. DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, and this is small, your notes do not have a consistent format.

Awadewit 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments! DrKiernan 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "The location of her birth remains uncertain ..." Why? Just a question of mine; you don't have to include the answer in the article!
    • For most of her life it was assumed that she was born in the family home at St Walden Bury, because that's where the birth was registered. However, in 1980 Clarence House admitted that she was actually born in London, "in the back of a taxi for all I know", Elizabeth is supposed to have said. Her staff amended that to a horse-drawn ambulance. Her biographers have since shown that in August 1900 Lady Strathmore was at their London residence, not the Bury. Hence, the three touted locations. DrKiernan
  • "He initially proposed to Elizabeth in 1921, but she initialy turned ..." Repetitive prose.
  • "this would have irreparably ruined Edward's status as a constitutional Monarch, obliged to accept ministerial advice.[16] He chose to abdicate.[17] Edward chose to abdicate ... " Again repetitive, and a bit choppy.
  • I know that the "Queen mother" is a symbol and a beloved personality in UK, but with expressions like "Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, and by her sheer endurance" you may have problems with the no POV policy of Wikipedia. In general, do not overuse adjectives characterising subjectively a person ("charismatic" for Edward, "charmy", "shrewd", "canny" for the Queen mother). It is another thing, of course, if you quote somebody else telling these things.
    • All biographers (even the ones who hate her) agree that she was charming and popular; and all biographers (even the ones who adore her) agree that behind the image she was tough as old boots. The sentences you quote are supported by the references. If these comments were omitted, the article would no longer be fully inclusive of relevant material. DrKiernan 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelley and others also allege that during World War II Elizabeth did not abide by the rationing regulations to which the rest of the population was subject[52][54] however, this point is contradicted by the official records;[55][56]". Is the punctuation OK here? And something else: If you want to avoid to have citations in a row, there are ways to combine them in one citation. You can check Tourette syndrome or Battle of Edson's Ridge.
    • Amended punctuation. Thanks for the tip, and your comments. DrKiernan 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I think the trend is to alphabetize the categories at the end of the article, but I won't insist!

Very nice, in general. Looking forward to seeing it in WP:FAC.--Yannismarou 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Elizabeth_Bowes-Lyon/archive1&oldid=191923017"