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 DrKiernan 07:34, 4 July 2012 [1].

Mary I of England[edit]

Featured article review/Mary I of England

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Bloody Mary. Former featured article that has been re-worked. Comments appreciated. DrKiernan (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA, has been on mainpage.

Image review

File:Mary_I_Signature.svg: where was this image taken from?
File:Coat_of_Arms_of_England_(1554-1558).svg: on what source was this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested further details from the uploaders. I can say:

The first word of the signature matches copies of her signature at the Bridgeman Art Library [2][3].
The shield, supporters and garter of the coat of arms matches, in the essential points, an eighteenth-century depiction in Trinity College, Oxford. For the shield and garter in a contemporary artwork see [4][5] (and for a damaged version [6]). For a version of the shield only see [7]. DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some textual sources to collaborate the images above: Charles Boutell, A manual of heraldry, historical and popular (1863), p.235: "Mary's shield when impaled is supported by an Eagle and a Lion". And, J.P. Brooke-Little, Royal Heraldry, Beasts and Badges of Britain (1977), p.9: "King Henry VIII, like his father, did not just use two supporters. He rang the changes but generally favored the crowned golden lion as his dexter and the red dragon as his sinister supporters, which is probably why King Edward VI, Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I, [...], all used these supporters; except that Mary, when bearing her arms conjoined to those of King Philip gave her husband his black eagle...". Will try and add some more later. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support (tentatively) on prose and comprehensiveness grounds, nothing is jumping out at me as a gap in knowledge or deal-breaker prose - ~~reading through now - queries below~~....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~For flow, I'd put her date and place of birth in the Birth and family bit - sorta just launches into a bunch of miscarriages otherwise.~~

~~Circumstances between Mary and her father worsened~~ ~~- odd choice of word, I'd have said, "Relations between Mary and her father worsened" or "The relationship between Mary and her father worsened"....~~

~~Her expenses included fine clothes and gambling, which was one of her favourite pastimes~~ ~~- no mention of what type of gambling....?~~

Changes on the above 3 points. DrKiernan (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I wonder what type of card game, but don't worry if not in the source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I'm afraid I can't find anything on the specific game or games played. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Johnbod's concern about brevity below - I was in two minds whether to mention something myself, only I couldn't identify anything specific which was missing. Good luck on adding stuff (I think it'll be straightforward) and I'll keep an eye on this FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting comments (& not sure when I'll be able to finish them). On first look, seems over-brief for an FA bio of an English monarch from this well-documented period. I think I know more than this from a decades-old History A-Level & a couple of tv programmes over the years, which ought not to be the case. But I have an unread Loades "The Reign of Mary Tudor" on the politics - little sign here of how he manages to find 400 pages of material. Looking at an older version, I see references, eg to Loades' biography (a different book), have been added, but the text appears very little altered.

Don't make the reader do arithmetic: "Mary I (18 February 1516 – 17 November 1558) was the Queen of England and Ireland from July 1553 until her death." Which was .... how long exactly?

It says "her five year reign". DrKiernan (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two paras later. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "... her cousin Charles V suggested she marry his only son, Prince Philip of Spain." who was .... a lot younger than her at 37, a rather key point. You'd have to go to his article for his dates I think, & I don't believe her age at accession or marriage etc is given. He is given very little introduction. I see, btw, that his bio seems the opposite of this - very long on politics, but very short on personal life.

In the words of Simon Renard, Philip "was of middle age", and therefore suitable to be her husband. DrKiernan (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was a diplomat; Philip was 27 at his marriage. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were both mature adults between youth and dotage. I'm simply not seeing any great coverage of the age difference in the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Titian portrait sent ahead by Philip was this one, now in the Prado, which at least the note should say. In fact I see that 13 months ago the location was in the text, & referenced (perhaps by me).

Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I just don't think this is comprehensive enough. I am about to go away & probably won't revist, but a significant expansion would be needed to reach FA standard imo, which I think is unlikely to occur while this FA is open. In particular, the lead is too short, & the single sentence in the "Ancestry" section should be worked in somewhere else if it is thought important. The sections before she reaches the throne are probably ok, but even for a short reign the coverage is too short, beginning with the battle for the accession. The article gives the impression that Lady Jane Grey was let off the hook, which she wasn't. There's too little about her council - which had much more continuity with the previous reign than one might expect. Not much impression is given of her personality, indeed a difficult topic. A faint whiff of Protestant POV - "Many rich Protestants, including John Foxe, chose exile, and around 800 left the country" - but how many Catholics came back, or left under Elizabeth? And "At age 37, Mary turned her attention to finding a husband and producing an heir, thus preventing the Protestant Elizabeth (still her successor under the terms of Henry VIII's will and the Act of Succession of 1544) from succeeding to the throne." Did she really see it just in those terms? The reign was evidently a PR disaster, but there is more to it than "Mary persevered with the policy, which continued until her death and exacerbated anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish feeling among the English people." Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

On the "male heir" thing, your rewording is fine, DrKiernan.
"In contradiction of the Succession Act": Maybe "Ignoring", "Flouting", or "In contravention of"
"Edward VI and his advisers devised that he be succeeded": "advisers devised" kind of jangles. Also, some know and some don't that "devise" is a legal term analogous to "bequeath", so this sentence will mean something different to some readers.
"but his view of the affair was entirely political": I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyedit. Changes on the three points above. I've removed "his view of the affair was entirely political", as it is repeated in the next sentence: "He had no amorous feelings toward Mary and sought the marriage for its political and strategic gains". DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Impressive. - Dank (push to talk) 11:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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