Wikipedia:Peer review/George VI of the United Kingdom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George VI of the United Kingdom[edit]

"Good article". LONG. The partner to the below (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). DrKiernan 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

"However, it has been alleged that she had intended to marry Edward, an engagement between them was even gossiped about in the papers, but historians assume that this is simply a case of misreporting."
Who has it been alleged by? Which historians assume? LuciferMorgan 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reading another one of my long articles! I've removed the above, the same sentence occured in Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, where I've now provided a reference to the newspaper which broke the story. The assumption of misreporting comes from Sarah Bradford's biography (reference given). DrKiernan 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Proposal" section needs cleaning up and turning into prose. Any critical reviews of the drama programs in question are welcomed, particularly if they comment on the portrayal of the man in question. I don't mind reading the articles, I'm just no good at giving feedback unless they're music related. Most editors complain about 1. a. which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose", but I'm ill equipped to comment on that criterion. [And I'm ill-equipped to write it! DrKiernan 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)] If you want 1. a. checked, politely ask Deckiller if he can give a peer review of the article as he may be able to help. LuciferMorgan 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I have updated the image tag, added persondata and linked the dates. DrKiernan 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially the King was seen as supportive of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement stance towards Adolf Hitler. "
Seen? By whom? Politicians of the day? Newspapers of the day? Modern biographers? LuciferMorgan 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've cleaned that up by changing the words so that they better match what H. C. G. Matthew has written in the reference given at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The official Royal Tour historian, Gustave Lanctot, stated: "When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence, the Statute of Westminster had assumed full reality: the King of Canada had come home." All quotes need citations. LuciferMorgan 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Empire to Commonwealth" subsection could do with citations. LuciferMorgan 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

You've been busy! It's a lot of work to put together this many articles! Yes, I'm not going to nominate this many articles at once again. It's far too much work! DrKiernan 11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Here are my suggestions.[reply]

  • George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor) (14 December 1895 - 6 February 1952) was the King of Great Britain, Ireland, each of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India, from 11 December 1936. - from December 1936 to ?
    • I deliberately left that hanging because it is different for Ireland and India. Actually, I was never very satisfied with the way it was phrased. I have tried a new wording. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I would suggest that you expand the lead to cover his entire life.
  • There are some odd italics at the beginning of the "Birth and family section."
  • The day was the anniversary of the death of his great grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. - by the time we've gotten to this sentence, we've forgotten that we are talking about the day he was born - rework or remind us
  • Do we really need to know who all of his godparents were?
    • I didn’t put these in, they were there when I first came to the page. I guess they show the connections of the family. I have moved them to a footnote. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite coming bottom of the class in the final examination, Albert progressed to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth in 1911. - awkwardly phrased first clause (unless this is an idiom of British English that I am unfamiliar with)
    • Ah, my alien idioms again! I have rephrased. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1920 he met Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the youngest daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and set his sights on marrying her. - "set his sights" sounds colloquial
    • Changed to "became determined to marry her" is that OK? DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is possible to build the births of their two children into the article rather than listing them as bullet points. Also, the birth of these children should also probably be mentioned more prominently in your Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon article.
    • I have put the bullets into prose. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rising Indian nationalism made the welcome which the royal couple would have received likely to be muted at best, and a prolonged absence from Britain would have been undesirable in the tense period before World War II, without the strategic advantages of the North American tour which in the event was undertaken in 1939. - awkward last phrase
  • However, when the King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938, they invited him to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with them, which was an exceptional association of the monarchy with a politician. - "exceptional" is odd diction; also, explain further why this incident was so unusual and what it meant
  • Is the section on the Statute of Westminster really that significant? If it is, it needs to be explained more fully.
    • I can’t take that out. User:G2bambino would go berzerk if I did. It does set up the later section regarding the transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire trip was a measure intended to placate the strong isolationist tendencies among the North American public vis-à-vis the developing tensions in Europe. - is "placate" the right word?
  • Although the aim of the tour was nevertheless mainly political, to shore up Atlantic support for Britain in any upcoming war, the King and Queen were enthusiastically received by the Canadian public and the fear that George would be unfavourably compared to his predecessor, Edward VIII, was dispelled. - awkwardly phrased
    • I have split it into two sentences. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trip demonstrated that as early as 1939 it was deemed appropriate for the novel doctrine of the discrete crowns of the Commonwealth Realms to be ostentatiously asserted. - what does this mean?
    • I have removed it because it has no reference. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Portrayal" and "Styles" section seem unnecessary to me (again); much of the address information is in the infobox as well.
  • The "Honours" section seems ridiculously long to me, but perhaps this is standard in royal biographies?
    • Yes, I agree it is ridiculously long. It takes ages to download on a slow connection, we almost gave up on my mother's dial-up. I can't see anything this long on any other royal page. The Honours of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon are a separate article. So, I will try moving this section to a sub-page. DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some uncited statements that begin "Some say..."
    • I’ve found two, which I’ve replaced with the source name. Are there any others? DrKiernan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My, by now, standard last note: your notes are not formatted the same way. :) Awadewit 10:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind expanding on this point a little? I've used citation templates except when referring to a specific page in one of the references, where I've just used Authorname, p.No. Thanks, again. DrKiernan 11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the notes have just the author and the page number and some of the notes (12, 13, 15, 28, 29, 31) have the entire citation. Why? Usually, as you know, one gives the entire citation first and then refers only to the author's name afterwards. Sometimes on wikipedia people eliminate the first complete citation, though - it's a wikipedia thing. Therefore, I could not tell if you were following the standard scholarly practice of fully citing the first appearance of a source or not - it was confusing. Is that clear? I feel like that was a convoluted explanation. Awadewit 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is absolutely clear. Notes 12,13,etc. are only cited once, and are slightly off topic, so I haven't put them into the references and give all details. As the others are in the references section, I chose not to duplicate the details in the notes section and just use Author, page (i.e.wikipedia style). In fact, the article was originally structured with full citations first and then just author afterwards but I then changed it for the sole reason of shortening the page slightly by removing duplicate material. Now, that isn't a very good reason so I'm quite happy to move it back to scholarly form now that I understand your comment. DrKiernan 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Another nice article of yours. Some minor remarks:

  • From the lead: "Albert served in the navy during World War I, and after the war took on the usual round of public engagements." "As the heir presumptive Albert ascended the throne as George VI, the third monarch of the House of Windsor." So here he is "Albert", but then you say: "George VI was born at York Cottage", and "George VI's birthday (14 December 1895) was the anniversary of the death of his great...". I don't like this alternation of names. IMO it is inconsistent. I see this alternation continues in the next sections as well. Anyway, this may be my personal preference.
  • "He was baptised at St Mary Magdalene's Church near Sandringham three months later.[3]" I don't think this has to be a seperate paragraph. After all, it is stubby like that.
  • "However, Edward VIII chose to abdicate his crown to marry a divorcée; it was by reason of this unforeseeable abdication, unique in British history, that George VI came to the throne." is this necessary here? You said the same thing in the lead, and you will further analyse it in the next sections. It looks to me like a repetition.
  • "Neville Chamberlain lost the support of the British House of Commons and was replaced as Prime Minister by Winston Churchill." This phrase looks to me seamlessly connected with the rest of the paragraph.
  • "In 1950 India became a republic, within the Commonwealth, and George VI ceased to be King. India recognised George's new title as Head of the Commonwealth." Did he remain King of Pakistan?
  • Is the "See also" section necessary with just one link? Personally, I would get somehow rid of it (e.g. by incorporating its only link in the main text, if you regard it as necessary).--Yannismarou 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, thanks for your comments. I've rewritten taking them into account. DrKiernan 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=192045491"