This article is about Prince Octavius of Great Britain, the thirteenth child of George III. His death deeply affected the King and Queen, and the former even had hallucinations of the prince in his later years. Despite the article's short length, I believe the prose and citations are good enough to constitute a featured article. Past examples of featured articles about a royal prince who died young are Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil and Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"husband of his first cousin twice-removed, for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy" - did the Earl stand proxy for the husband or for the first cousin twice-removed? Wording is ambiguous
Done: now reads: "His godparents were the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (husband of his first cousin twice-removed), for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy; the Duke of Mecklenburg (his first cousin once-removed), for whom the Earl of Ashburnham, Groom of the Stole, stood proxy; and the Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (wife of his sixth cousin), for whom Alicia Wyndham, Countess of Egremont and Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Charlotte, was proxy." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"other events organized" - article is about a British topic so British spelling should be used per WP:TIES and therefore the last word should be "organised"
"The prince's death had a marked effect, both mentally and physically on Queen Charlotte" => "The prince's death had a marked effect, both mentally and physically, on Queen Charlotte"
That's all I got - a nice read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes. I have taken care of all the issues you pointed out. Since I am new to FA Reviews, can I ask if this is the review itself, or are you just giving notes? Thanks! Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Octavius_of_Great_Britain_-_West_1783.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:The_Apotheosis_of_Prince_Octavius_-_West_1783.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do I tag an image? Do I just go over to the Commons page to do so? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just edit the image description page at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have just done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that the first of those two has been tagged? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the second image was tagged; I just tagged the lead image. Thank you for the feedback. Do you have anything other suggestions for this nomination? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Janice Hadlow's book: A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III as containing useful information about the death of the prince, that I don't see here. Since the article is (necessarily, perhaps) short, could more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte, to the extent that the prince would have experienced them?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your source recommendation. It was flooded with useful tidbits on Octavius's life and the royal court during that time period. I have gone ahead and included such references. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, were you interested in performing a more extensive review? We seem to be on the home stretch with this one so thought I'd check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few minor things:
" nineteen-months-old" I don't see the reason for the hyphens. Similarly "four-years-old".
"had their remains transferred to St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820, at around three.[4][35]" Does this mean three in the afternoon? If so, that might be a little bit over specific.
"Shortly afterward, King George said "There will be no Heaven for me if Octavius is not there."[11][16][43] " Why does a short quote require three footnotes?
That's it. I'll Support since these are relatively minor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits. Watch out for false title in British English.
He died 6 days after his smallpox innoculation, some 15 years before Jenner introduced the much safer cowpox innoculation. You say "Octavius has the distinction of being the last member of the British royal family to contract smallpox", presumably contracted from the innoculation, but don't give this clearly as the cause of death. Was the innoculation blamed? Did the death have an effect on the popularity of the technique? More on this would be good - the sources must say something, one would think.
I agree that "more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte". Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I will try to resolve said issues by tonight. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have added information and citations regarding the circumstances of Octavius's death. Additionally, I expanded on the techniques George III and Queen Charlotte used to raise their children, including several anecdotes from members of the royal court. I hope this has taken care of everything; hopefully, this article is now ready for FA status. If not, please let me know what else I can do. Thank you! Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I hope you will tackle something more substantial next time. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Thank you for your support. As a matter of fact, I am currently tackling a FA nomination of Reign of Cleopatra right now, but unfortunately, the process does not seem to being going well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're inconsistent about the use of the publisher location in your sources; e.g. Fraser (2004) and Shephard (1894) include it, but Hadlow (2014) and Hibbert (2000) don't. It doesn't matter which way you do it but it should be consistent.
You have an ISBN on Wilson (1907); presumably this is a reprint you're citing? If so, it would be better to cite what you actually consulted. If it's a facsimile you can use the "orig-year" parameter to show the original publication date. The same applies to Papendiek (1887) and Hall (1858).
You have three web citations. The Royal Collection Trust and College of St. George citations use publisher=; the British History Online uses website=. Again this should be consistent.
There are several old sources used; all seem fine for the minor details they support. However, I would suggest making it "The 19th-century biographer John Watkins..." in order to let the reader know the comment is not from a modern scholarly historian.
The link for Cannon (2004) goes to a Marquette University Libraries login; I don't think this is generally useful enough to keep the link.
@Mike Christie Thank you. I have gone ahead and addressed all your comments. Would the article be up to FA standard now, or is there something else I can do for you? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"after the death of his brother Prince Alfred". Suggest adding 'younger'.
"Octavius was inoculated with the smallpox virus." One is usually against a virus.
"Despite being raised in an environment that discouraged public shows of familial affection, she praised ..." I cannot find anything about how Mrs Delaney was raised in the source.
"The king also was kept informed". Upper case K.
"was close to his nearest sister Sophia". What does "nearest" mean?
"When he was nineteen months old". Hyphen needed.
"he again became the youngest surviving child". "again"; had he previously become the youngest surviving child?
"ordered their remains transferred to St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820". Is that when George ordered it, or when they were transferred?
"broke down and cried in front of everyone,[30] and their parents were likewise visibly touched." The "likewise" would suggest that the parents also broke down and cried. Is that the case?
@Gog the Mild I have taken care of all your comments. I will say though, inoculation was an early form of vaccination and the majority of sources describe people as being inoculated with rather than against a disease. Also, I believe the "Titles and styles" section makes more sense as its own thing, seeing as it does not really flow well in the prose. If you still feel strongly about that, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inoculation: what does a consensus of the modern HQ RSs use? Hadlow for example has "Octavius was inoculated against smallpox".
A separate "Titles and styles" section is fine by me. But its contents should be written in prose, not as a bullet-pointed one-item list. Eg start it something like 'Octavius's style was His Royal Highness ... and his title was ...' Link style and title. Why is "His Royal Highness" in italics?
@Gog the Mild Whoops. Sorry for the misunderstandings on my part. Could you please take another look? I am fairly certain that all issues have been addressed this time. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"King George III had been very fond of his two youngest sons, Alfred and Octavius, and his later bouts of madness would involve hallucinations of his dead sons" – unclear: do the last two words refer solely to Alfred and Octavius or were there other dead sons?
"his later bouts of madness" needs a blue link or some other explanation for the benefit of the reader.
"Prince Octavius was born on 23 February 1779 at Buckingham House, London, England" – geographical overload − heavy WP:OVERLINK.
"the archbishop of Canterbury … the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" – can we have some consistency in capitalisation of titles?
"King George was extremely devoted to Octavius, who was too young to cause the kinds of trouble that his elder brothers did by this time" – says who, and what kinds of trouble? All his elder brothers or just some of them? Brief examples and citations, please.
"Somewhat unusually for the period …" – this 55-word sentence could do with splitting.
"Octavius was close with Princess Sophia (his closest sister in terms of age)" – "close with"? Odd phrasing. "Close to" perhaps. And close … closest in one sentence is infelicitous.
"he was nineteen-months-old" – strange hyphenation.
"In 1820, the historian Edward Holt would write of the prince's character" – but earlier we have "the King and Queen" – consistency in capitalisation wanted. And why "would write" rather than a plain "wrote"?
"was four-years-old" – more strange hyphenation
"the Royal Archives" – why the Capital Letters?
"on 11 February 1820, at around three" – at around three what? If 3 p.m., as I'm guessing, do we need to know that?
"styled as His Royal Highness" – why the italics?
I hope these points are helpful in getting the article nearer to FA standard. Tim riley talk 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Thank you for your comments. Here are my responses to each of them:
Done.
I'm not exactly sure where you would want me to link that too.
I think the sentence is alright the way it is; none of the other FA reviewers said anything about this.
Someone went in and made "archbishop" lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES.
I'm not sure that writing about Octavius's brothers' sexual and financial misconduct is particularly relevant in this article; once again, none of the other FA reviewers said anything about this.
Done
I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
I'm actually not too sure about the capitalization of "prince" in this situation. Because no one else pointed that out, I'm inclined to say that it's alright. It says "would write" because by this time, Octavius had been dead for quite some time.
I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
The Wikipedia article Royal Archives is in capital letters, and other sources capitalize it, too.
I don't think stating the time is that big of an issue.
Other articles, including featured ones, list His/Her Royal Highness and His/Her Majesty in italics. I'm just following precedent here.
OK. I hoped my comments might be of some use, but I see not. If my colleagues, above, think the article as it stands is of FA quality I shall not oppose, but I don't support it as it stands. Tim riley talk 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Tim riley! @Ian Rose has just brought me up to speed on the FA review process. I deeply apologize if the tone of my reply came across as dismissive or disregarding. I have taken a look at your feedback and revised the article accordingly. If you could spare some time, would you mind taking another look and giving me your thoughts? Once again, I am so sorry about our previous interaction, and thank you so much for helping me navigate my first FA nomination! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- When an editor as experienced as Tim Riley won't actually oppose but cannot in conscience support the nom, it gives me pause. Unlimitedlead, the FAC instructions state that resolution of critical comments outweighs simple declarations of support, and I'd suggest reconsidering how you might resolve some of these comments. I realise that it can be a challenge when one reviewer advises one thing and another advises something else, but this will happen when we have a system utilising several reviewers. Furthermore, just because earlier reviewers don't pick up an issue, it doesn't follow that someone picking it later should be ignored; again, this is why we expect several reviews of an article before we consider promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reaching out about that. I will try to incorporate some of Tim Riley's feedback, but due to the conflicting nature of some of the comments I've received, I an unable to guarantee that all of them will be honored. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to leave it to my fellow editors to decide if the article is of FA quality. Tim riley talk 17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, I had forgotten that this was a first-time nom for which we like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing. I've since performed this myself, checking citations 10, 23a/b/c, 26a/b/c, 30 and 42. My only concern was with 10, in that the referenced page does not mention the king's devotion to Octavius, only the troubles with the other children. Unlimitedlead, although the king's fondness for Octavius is evident and cited elsewhere, this statement should also include a cited source to that effect (perhaps pp. 265-266 from Brooke but up to you) if it's to remain as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I feel like the "Titles and styles" section could be incorporated into another; it's currently only one sentence long, so I think it would make the article flow better if that information were to be moved somewhere else. DecafPotato (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @DecafPotato! Thank you for your suggestion. I have actually received the same comment from other users, but I'm still undecisive. On one hand, your argument makes total sense, but on the other hand, many other articles on British royalty have this "Titles and styles" section, so I'd hate to be inconsistent. Do you feel strongly about this? If so, I am willing to make the change, but please do let me know where you think I would place this sentence. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi all, jumping in here, a separate titles and styles section is the practice in royalty articles but, sure, it might also be reasonable to incorporate the single sentence into the main body. That said, this nom has remained open a while and consensus has formed to promote, and I don't think this needs to affect that. By all means discuss on the article talk page after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.