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 by Ian Rose 10:20, 21 February 2012 [1].

Elizabeth II[edit]

Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is almost perfectly written and is just about at the level of other British monarch FA's. It could use a couple of revisions, like in the header, but I think it'd be really cool to work out all the kinks by February 6 to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Comments always help! Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hi Rockhead, welcome to FAC. Have you contacted any of this article's editors? Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, he posted at the article's talk page, and the most significant editor agreed that he could nominate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review.
  • FN 10 corrected
  • Most wikilinks removed
  • The quotation marks used match the original source in all cases
  • Hyphens removed
  • I'm really not keen on adding a location for OUP, because of the duplication "Oxford Oxford" (so good, they named it twice)
  • I've used ampersands because I like the pretty curls. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd keep the ampersand. I looked up Cassell & Co, and that's how it's listed everywhere.
  • I don't think adding the OUP location would look all that bad. The colon kinda separates it out. When I see "Oxford: Oxford University Press", I think "Oxford University Press in Oxford". Unless Nikkimaria agrees with you, I'd change it for the sake of consistency. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, have done as it turns out one of the books is published from the New York office! DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave the article a good article review a few months ago, where my concerns were dealt with. I am happy with the minimal changes since then, and so, after a chat with DrKiernan, I am happy that this article is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 09:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. I am tempted to nominate those images that are not free in the US for deletion at Commons; maybe in the process someone more knowledgeable about the matter will have a solution. —Andrewstalk 11:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed it from the article, because it has been nominated for deletion before and kept [3]. But I don't mind if someone wants to remove/replace it or re-start the deletion discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on this file restarted by Adabow here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the general quality of the article (which I read during the blackout via the cache) is good, there are a few concerns that need addressing:-

I read the article in somewhat restricted circumstances; if I can find the time I may add further comments, but in general this looks a thoughtful and well-constructed article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review.

Well, I'm disappointed with the first three of those responses. The lead as it stands does not in my view meet Featured Article standards, and adamantine statements like "that's not going to happen" make me think it never will. It is essential that lead statements are clear, since the lead is likely the most read part of any article. I simply don't accept that it is impossible to write a lead that does not contain a confusion of terms that require background knowledge to interpret. For instance, the sentence "During her reign of 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch, she became queen of 25 other Commonwealth countries as they gained independence" implies that she was not queen of these countries before—which of course she was. And how can a decision to ignore the Overseas Territories altogether in the article, not just in the lead, possibly be justified? I urgently ask you and other interested editors to reconsider how the lead should be presented. I don't want to oppose this article's promotion, but if the answer really is "it's not going to happen", then I feel I will have no choice. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Brianboulton, I also think the lead should be improved. Can we rephrase it a little? Do we really need the following: In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis ("horrible year"), Charles and Andrew separated from their wives, Anne divorced, and a severe fire destroyed part of Windsor Castle. Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and they divorced in 1996. The following year, Diana died in a Paris car crash, and the media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before her funeral. I think that this article has the potential to be a Featured Article. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the article. It won't be an adequate summary if annus horribilis, her children's marital problems, and Diana's death are excluded from it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe you are correct. I liked this change, it is better now. I am reading the article again, so far, no problems have surfaced. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, I think we should use the modern version: File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg What do you think? Regards Paulista01 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The modern version is copyrighted, whereas the older version's copyright has expired. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we can make it, but I think February 6 would be better. It's the 60th Anniversary of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne, her Diamond Jubilee. Queen Victoria was the only British monarch who lived long enough to have her Diamond Jubilee, so it's a huge milestone. Rockhead126 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the date of the official Jubilee not be more appropriate, the 5th of June. --George2001hi (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. I just added 60 years to the actual ascension date. Yes, though, the official date when everyone'll be celebrating is more appropriate. Rockhead126 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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