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 promoted 00:08, 17 February 2008.

---

Edward VII[edit]

Check external links

• Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think the bolding in the Titles and Styles section is necessary. Epbr123 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have raised this point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the sentence, Edward was born at 10:48 a.m. on 9 November 1841 in Buckingham Palace., what time zone was 10:48 a.m.? Juliancolton (Talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but the difference between local time and GMT would have been slight. According to my notes, this comes from Bentley-Cranch, but I think I should re-check it as, now that you've pointed it out, the precision of the time seems odd. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think of that in particular, but it does indeed seem odd how percise the timeing is. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Queen Victoria wrote in her journal: "at last, at 12 m[inutes] to 11, I gave birth to a fine large Boy". (Magnus, 1) The precise timing came from Victoria herself. PeterSymonds | talk 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. That seems like a reliable source. Support now I see nothing else wrong. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a timezone in 1841; presumably a standing clock (supposedly) keeping local time. I doubt we will ever know how accurate it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is in a much better state now thanks to DrKiernan's efforts. PeterSymonds | talk 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For now, after a quick glance, these issues with the sources:
  • footnote 3 is "Magnus p. 1" . No Magnus in the References section
    • Done by somebody else. Philip Magnus wrote a standard life of Edward VII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of sources are in the footnotes, but not in the References section
    • So what? If they're cited for incidental points, they should not be in the references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ashley's got four footnotes to him, and the Duke of Windsor's got five. I can see the one offs not needing to be in the References (although I'd put them there myself) but something that gets four or five footnotes is getting to more important matters. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned that you're using a synopsis of a work from Amazon.com as a source.
• I also have concerns about the short paragraphs in the lede, they give the prose a choppy feel. I didn't read the article itself closely, so haven't addressed any prose/MOS issues in the body of the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)issues.[reply]
  • I've redrafted [1]. The lead is deliberately split into four paragraphs: 1. why he's notable 2. life as Prince of Wales 3. life as King 4. what happened after his death. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks better. I'd prefer it if it was a bit longer in the lede, but it feels a bit less choppy now. Thanks! Changing to support now.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very interesting, fairly well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. There are some unreferenced areas that need to be addressed. The prose is fairly good, and it was a very interesting article.
  • Need a citation for " The war marked the end of the Edwardian way of life."
    • Why? That is a not a tautology, like 2 + 2 = 4; but it is almost as well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Legacy section is completely unreferenced, and there are statements in this section that need references.
    • "foremost teaching and medical care providing institutions in India"
    • "the largest maternity hospital in the Perth metropolitan area. "
    • That the schools are named for him, not for another of the Edwards
    • " latter a rare example of an Edwardian Theatre"
    • "The only medical school in the former British colony of Singapore"
    • ". The series was actually based on the story of Rosa Lewis, an Edwardian society cook who had risen from the ranks of a scullery maid to own the famous Cavendish Hotel"
    • " However, there is no evidence that Edward had an affair with Rosa."
  • Probably the best thing to do here is to move the list of institutions named after Edward VII to a list of its own. Rosa Lewis contains a source on Rosa Lewis and Edward VII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've redrafted [2]. Can the quote from Tuchman's Guns of August be taken as a reference to the end of the Edwardian way of life? The schools are called "King Edward VII School". DrKiernan (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think so; other standard references include her The Proud Tower, chapter 1, and The Strange Death of Liberal England by Dangerfield, passim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why Duchess of Duke Street need go out entirely. Edward does appear, and the semi-fictional aspects are rightly explained in its own article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Leaning to support. A thorough, well-organised and balanced article.

• I agree with the comment above about the "named after" section (for me, "Legacy" is rather too weighty a title for a section about statues and so forth). "Portrayals" also seems to me lightweight and unnecessary. "Titles, styles, honours and arms" contains jargon, such as "differenced": why we have all been mesmerised into accepting unexplained jargon in this category of section and no other, I don't know (I am a reasonably educated person, but "differenced by a label argent, of three blank points" means nothing to me). It's a shame that such a good article picks up bits and pieces of fluff at the end; I don't blame DrKiernan, but the tradition by which bitty sections have become tolerated over time at the end of articles.

• The article says that he was denied a career in the army and that his military ranks were honorary, but later we hear about him and his fellow officers on manoeuvres in Ireland. OK, with a girl in his tent, perhaps he wasn't taking them seriously, but is it possible to smooth over the apparent disjunction?

• She wrote, "I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder". / The Prince wrote, complaining of the treatment of the native Indians by the British officials, "Because a man has a black face and a different religion from our own, there is no reason why he should be treated as a brute." Perhaps it's just me, but I like to know where (diary/speech/letter, etc.) people say things—to give context.

• After the couple's marriage, she expressed anxiety about their lifestyle. I felt the need for specifics here: what was there to annoy her about their lifestyle?

• The number VII was occasionally omitted in Scotland, in protest at his use of a name carried by English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle" Omitted by whom? He would still be called Edward, even without the number. I felt the need for an explanation here.

• Jewish financier friends. Perhaps the "Jewish" could be dropped. I daresay he had non-Jewish financier friends, and Jewish non-financier friends, so I feel the distinction isn't necessary.

• Picture of family: I can't quite tell if that's a photo or perhaps a lithograph, or something, made from a photo. Might it be indicated what medium we are looking at, as in some of the other images?

• In 1870, republican sentiment in Britain was given a boost when the French Emperor, Napoleon III, was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and the French Third Republic was declared.[27] However, in the winter of 1871, while staying at Londesborough Lodge, near Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Edward contracted typhoid, the disease that had killed his father. There is no immediate connection between these two sentences. One emerges later in the paragraph, but readers may need their way smoothed here.

• At the end of the tour, his mother was given the title Empress of India, in part as a result of the tour's success. Who by?

• In 1900, Persimmon's brother, Diamond Jubilee, won all five classic races (Derby, St Leger, Two Thousand Guineas, Newmarket Stakes and Eclipse Stakes) Well, the five classics are the One Thousand Guineas, Two Thousand Guineas, Derby, Oaks, and St Leger; and they were the same then. The One Thousand and the Oaks are only open to fillies, so since Diamond Jubilee, as a brother, was a colt, he couldn't have won five classics in a year. I suspect he probably just won the five races named: it would, I think, be neat if they could be written in the order they occur (I am not sure when the Newmarket Stakes was run in those days, but I suspect it would have been first, followed by the Two Thousand, the Derby, the Eclipse, and the St Leger).

• [he]pioneered the pressing of trouser legs from side to side in preference to the now normal front and back creases. Is "pioneered" quite the right word for preferences in ironing trousers? Especially as in this case, it didn't really catch on. Checking the picture of the four kings, it certainly looks as if little George is laterally pressed, but unless my eyes deceive me, our pioneer is wearing frontally pressed trousers. Obviously no Jim Bowie.

Support. Another very impressive article from DrKiernan. qp10qp (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've redrafted: [3]
  • I entirely agree with your assessment of "Legacy" and "Portrayals" and such like sections, but my and your desire to see them expunged is matched by equally vociferous editors insisting that they be included. Only last week I had another discussion over the issue (see User talk:DrKiernan#Charles II of England, Talk:Richard III of England#In popular culture and related edits by me and User:Necrothesp on all the monarch articles).

What do others think? I would be interested to hear the view of other reviewers on these sections. My argument would be that an FA article has to reflect the best scholarship, and works of scholarship do not contain "portrayals" sections or trivialise legacy. These lists should go on other pages, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind "Legacy" sections, where you cover information in a semi-formal way. From my medieval bishops, that's where I put things like "They had an awful reputation for unchastity" or "They were canonized." It's a good catchall place for things like the fashion influences for Edward VII. What I object to is the listing of every time a person's name is used in video games or mentioned in passing in some TV show. Many biographies have a chapter or two on things the subject was known for that carried on past their death. Good luck keeping the trivia lists out though!Ealdgyth | Talk 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I want to keep Jewish in. The point is that high society was generally anti-Semitic but Edward ignored prejudice and attracted criticism for openly socialising with Jews. I don't want to state this explicitly because his (relative) lack of prejudice is already covered elsewhere in the article but just highlighting it here reinforces that. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that point is not clear from the article at all and perhaps should be made explicit. As it stands, for me, the passing identification of his financiers as Jewish is not luminous. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should. He also created several Jewish peers. It was assumed at the time that this was gratitude for handling his debts, and was widely commented on. (The Rothschilds were first, in 1885; I'm not sure how much was his influence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Added a sentence [4] DrKiernan (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was particularly impressed with the quality of the prose and the flow of the article. Most interesting. --GrahamColm^Talk 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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