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 18:44, 19 June 2007.

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor[edit]

Peer review Talk History

Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 09:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments (sorry once again I missed the peer review for these):
1. Not sure the coincidence with George V's would-have-been birthday is particularly relevant, but that's minor.
2. "...lent to them by Charles Bedaux, who later worked actively for Germany in World War II..." it's unclear what he "actively" did. Could you expand a bit on this for non-expert readers like me?
3. Suggest wikilink letters patent, again for the non-experts.
4. "On the outbreak of the war..." doesn't sound quite right to me, perhaps "Following the outbreak..."?
5. Overwikilinking of Germany in WWII para, but a minor point again.
6. Ref [72] needs moving in-line with WP:CITE.
7. Is it "exploitative" rather than "exploitive"? Perhaps both are legitimate...
8. Death of Diana could be linked to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
9. duchess with small d in Historical speculation section - consistency required.
10. "Hearsay, conjecture and politically-motivated propaganda have clouded assessment of the Duchess of Windsor's life, unhelped by her own manipulation of the truth. But there is no document which proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy." sentences read a bit like an essay. I don't think need citing but they don't feel quite right for me.
11. "made-for-TV movie" could be better expressed as "television movie", in my opinion.

Hope these help, let me know if there's anything more I can do. The Rambling Man 12:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does help, thank you. I have addressed the minor points, and will expand on Bedaux tomorrow. (6) Ref 72 only applies to the first clause of the sentence, so I would prefer to leave it there. I could insert a comma? (7) The Oxford English Dictionary gives both forms. (10) Also mentioned at peer review and I've been thinking about it since then. I guess I could re-write it (with citations), but it would lose its poetic resonance if I did so. I'd prefer to wait until someone objects, and forces me to do something about it! ;-) DrKiernan 12:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't worry too much about ref 72, certainly don't add a comma where one really isn't needed. Glad OED has both exploit...'s, and as for my comment 10, I couldn't agree more, the prose on FA's is supposed to be engaging (or even brilliant!) so I would do as you have said, wait until someone really gets upset by it! The Rambling Man 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing I've just noticed, you ought to have a specific Fair Use rationale for all Fair Use images within the article. I think the Time front cover and the Hitler shot both need specific rationales, but best check them all. The Rambling Man 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lots of instances of confusing prose.

You should mention where she was born in the lead. As someone unfamiliar with her, I initially assumed she was British; don't assume the reader has prior knowledge of the subject.
- Done.
"She remains a controversial figure in British history." should be put at the end of the lead as kind of a wrapping up sentence: "THUS, she remains..."
- Done.
"the only child of Teackle Wallis Warfield by Alice M. Montague." Huh? This could be A LOT clearer. If that is her mother and father, just say so.
"She was named Bessie Wallis, in honour of her father and her mother's sister, Bessie Montague, Mrs. David Buchanan Merryman." Huh? Where does the second name come from?
- Amended.
"at Pensacola, Florida whilst visiting her cousin, Mrs Corinne Mustin." Whilst? Why not just Corinne Mustin? The language is too cute.
- Amended.
"witnessed two aeroplane crashes about a fortnight apart" Same thing. I understand this article is about a royal but must the language be so romantic?
- I don't know what you mean here. How is an aircrash romantic?
  - Just that the terms 'aeroplane' and 'fortnight' seem antiquated to me. More a personal opinion than anything. Nathanalex 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I see. I think that's a difference between British and American usage. I shall change it to the American version and see if anyone complains. DrKiernan 06:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Later that year Wallis sailed out to the Far East aboard a troop carrier; during the trip the passengers were so unruly a man was killed and buried at sea." Who killed the man? Why were the passengers unruly? Why does this matter at all to Wallis?
"Win continued an association with the Italian fascists" Where does it mention he had an association to begin with?
"The Simpsons temporarily set up home in a Mayfair furnished house with four servants." Mayfair is apparently a district in London. Should it say 'in a furnished home in Mayfair'?
- Amended.
"as well as evidence of a physical sex act." Vague.
- Quotes added.
In legacy section, "But there is no document which proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy." This should have a citation as it seems POV, or left out all together.
- Amended.
  - This sentence still bothers me. I hate to be a pain, but it just seems like it is original research. The sources don't seem to say anything about ambition, nor do they say anything about tragedy. It seems this sentence would better fit in an individual essay, rather than an encyclopedia. Nathanalex 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added a quote from Weintraub as an attempt at further justification. DrKiernan 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of places that need commas... will try to add them myself. Nathanalex 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Your comments and help are much appreciated! DrKiernan 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead states authoritatively "She was born out of wedlock in humble circumstances" when the later facts and cites show this may not be the case. Secondly: She was never "maitresse en titre (official mistress) " this id not an officially recognized title in Britain. While the couple friends were aware of the position it was never acknowledged in public that she was his mistress. There seem to quite a lot of conjecture in the page. which perhaps does not need to be there. Giano 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Yes, there have been edits to the page within the last 24 hours, which have led to the discrepancy. The out-of-wedlock claim is backed by original documents as quoted by Higham, I am waiting to discover which original documents were used by the newly introduced source. I think I can fairly easily find a reference for maitresse en titre (official mistress), if I can't I will change it. As for conjecture, yes, there is. But the conjecture is labelled as such and the sources for it are given. DrKiernan 13:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'maitresse en titre" can never be official even if you find some one who has published the term because she was never his "official mistress" - there is no such term in England. One may have a mistress but not an official mistress as the term and relationship is not acknowleged by law or in any way as official. Giano 15:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two references and a dictionary definition. DrKiernan 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Object'~~:No I don't buy it - she was never his "maitresse en titre" secondly these titles listed in the info-box: HG The Duchess of Windsor Mrs Wallis Warfield Mrs Ernest Aldrich Simpson Mrs Wallis Warfield Spencer Mrs Earl Winfield Spencer Miss Wallis Warfield

"HG" is completely wrong and never used in abreviated form, the other names are not titles but forms of address, many of them just temporary names by which she chose to call herself - they appear to be just listed to bulk out the info box. Giano 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox amended. "maitresse en titre" is supported by two highly respectable (in fact, one could say the best) sources - Ziegler and Bradford. DrKiernan 09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It matters not who says it - the fact remains "maitresse en titre" is not officially aplied to the mistresses of British Kings - even at the height of the Hannovarian royal promiscuity the mistresses were never referred to so - even if mistresses were so called at Versailles. It is just a modern introduction from the french introduced pretentiously and wrongly by some biographers. I'm sure Edward VII never said "Do you know my maitresse en titre Mrs Keppel?" No more than Mrs Keppel had her visiting cards printed "Mrs George Keppel, (maitresse en titre a le Roi)" I won't support while this term remains - having read the page again I'm surprised amongst all the gossipy bits about her birth etc there is no mention if the "Singapore Clinch" and other rumours concerning her behaviour in that department. Giano 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"maitresse en titre" removed. DrKiernan 06:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. LuciferMorgan 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I restored original name of the article in the nomination heading.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor is wrong. There should be no "the". In fact as she was not divorced from the Duke or superseded in the title by the wife an an heir of the Duke the title could just be "The Duchess of Windsor"; another alternative is The Dowager Duchess of Windsor. Whatever alternative is chosen Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor is incorrect. Giano 06:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions here: Talk:Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor#Wikipedia Convention re Names. There appears to have been a move war between editors before I came to the page. They settled on Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor. It is not my choice. DrKiernan 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument on this one, the title is plainly and simply wrong "THE" does not ever come after a woman's Christian name as the definite article of her title neither for commoner Duchesses or Royal Duchesses. See Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough or more succinctly both her sisters-in-law Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent the only difference is Wallis was not an HR so does not have the "princess" first (although that is debatable in law, she was never officially recognized as a princess) Giano 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, evidently I wasn't clear above. I agree with you. Is that now clear? DrKiernan 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When something is clearly wrong, one just moves the page. Giano 08:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I announced it on the talk page, there wasn't any dissent this time. DrKiernan 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Here are examples just from the lead of why the whole article needs fresh eyes. Ninety minutes' work by a good copy-editor.
- MOS now allows no bolding of alternative names, to avoid the ugly crowd of black at the top. Why not change it?
  - Because MoS says, "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface." Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide prefers bold.
- Ungainly repetition: "the King proposed to marry her. The desire of the King to marry her".
  - Amended.
- "The abdicated King"—Unusual and ungainly construction. "After abdication, he was ..."
  - Amended.
- "George VI of the United Kingdom"—pipe this link using just "George VI".
  - Amended.
- "the style "Her Royal Highness""—Is it a style or a title? MOS says use italics.
  - Amended.
- Remove comma after "during".
  - Amended.
- Suspected of being Nazi sympathisers by whom? Such a serious accusation should either be left until the body of the article or supported by the agent(s) of suspicion here.
  - This is fully expanded in the body of the article.
- MOS says use a comma: "In the 1950s and 1960s she and the Duke shuttled between". Tony 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, amended. DrKiernan 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, buzz me when you've had someone else do the whole thing. Tony 09:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should have paid more attention to what Nathanlex said earlier, I've had another couple of scans through it. DrKiernan 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've given it a copy edit. There didn't seem much wrong with it apart from a few punctuation points here and there. The prose does seem a little stiff, and I would have welcomed a few longer sentences, but on the other hand, it is a very clear read, and I think foreign and younger readers would find it one of the easier encyclopedia articles to read, which is very much a virtue. The referencing was highly impressive and thorough and I feel very confident that this article is comprehensive and reliable. It is a good length and follows a clear structure.

A few minor points:

maitresse en titre

I found this rather an intrusive expression to put right at the beginning of the article, and its three reference tags are distracting. Might it not be better to just say that she was his mistress and if the maitresse en titre bit is necessary, to displace it to a footnote, explaining it there as a specialist term?

Amended.

At an evening party in Buckingham Palace, he introduced her to his mother — his father was outraged,[35] primarily on account of her marital history (divorced people were excluded from court).

By my reckoning, she was still married at this time; or did this ban apply even to remarried people? In fact, the article gives no information about the state of this second marriage: was Wallis separated from the second husband by now? I would have thought that the king would have been even more outraged that Edward was seeing a married woman than that she had previously been divorced.

Yes, the ban still applied to the remarried. Simpson faded from the scene from about August 1934.

The King of the United Kingdom is Supreme Governor of the Church of England – at the time of the proposed marriage, and until 2002, the Church of England did not permit the re-marriage of divorced people with living ex-partners.[45] Accordingly, while there was no civil law barrier to King Edward marrying Wallis, and she would have automatically become Queen of the United Kingdom and Empress of India, the constitutional position was that the King could not marry a divorcée and remain as King (for to do so would conflict with his role as Supreme Governor).

Perhaps it's me, but I found this explanation unnecessarily diffuse. Does it mean that he could have married her in a registry office and she would have become queen but then he would have had to abdicate? I think it might be simpler to say that constitutionally he could not marry a divorcée because it would clash with his governorship of the Church of England rather than mentioning the bit about her automatically becoming queen.

Yes, I agree. Amended.

briefly reunited/evacuated

Where were they reunited? Why "evacuated"? (People are usually evacuated to move them away from danger, but it seems here that she moved because she was ill.)

Why was she travelling around China?

"travelled" changed to "toured", "billeted" changed to "stayed".

Win and the Fascists. This isn't explained. It seems too abrupt, because it is mentioned after he has gone back to the States, and his connection with Italy hasn't been mentioned before.

Amended.

When was she supposed to have been lovers with Ribbentrop? When she was visiting Germany with the Duke, or before?

Amended.

fled south

Where from? Where had they been living before?

Amended.

After her husband's death, the Duchess gave her legal authority to her French lawyer, Suzanne Blum

Does this mean that Blum was her lawyer? What's the significance of this?

Wallis was named Woman of the Year by Time magazine in 1936, the first ever female to receive the title.

Now, if you don't change this fast, I'll send it to one of those Wikipedia joke pages. It made me laugh out loud.

Amended! Made me laugh as well.

qp10qp 06:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll reluctantly move from oppose to neutral; it's better-written than it was, but hardly "compelling" as required. At random, I saw:
- "For the next three months, she was practically under siege"—I think that "practically" is not good encyclopedic/scholarly language, because it's vague, unverifiable, and may be an attitudinal epithet. Same for "seemingly".
- "morganatic marriage"—shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what this unusual term means.
- "Wallis performed her role as the Governor's lady with competence for five years." "Wallis competently performed ...". Tony 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks , I've amended the above. DrKiernan 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Don't be so grudging Tony, we have both seen far worse promoted. I've changed to support following the changes I asked for above. Giano 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read through this, wondering why I was doing so. What was this person notable for, other than being one factor in an abdication? (And an abdication that substituted a stuttering figurehead for a smartly-dressed figurehead.) After I'd read all the way through the article, I still didn't know. She had been married and divorced twice, certain Brits didn't think this was appropriate for a king's missus; he preferred her to a life of ceremony; this screwed up her plan for the ultimate pedestal; she soured toward the Brits. I can't see that she accomplished anything. I can't even see that she damaged anything. The article handily reminds us that the silliness of Time is nothing new, but there's no sign that she was anything other than a remarkable social climber who failed to make it to the top but lucked out all the same with an unearned life of moneyed leisure. We then read at the end that there is no document which proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy. How was she a victim of her own ambition? How was the romance "great"? (It seems pretty banal to me.) What "great tragedy"? Tragedy for whom? (I'd been under the impression that it worked out rather well: the king was of no importance but the missus of the king the Brits got was one who was right -- or who was easily presented as right -- for the times; while the missus of the king the Brits didn't get would have been a much harder sell.) -- Hoary 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what about this ending?:

"Hearsay, conjecture and politically-motivated propaganda have clouded assessment of the Duchess of Windsor's life, unhelped by her own manipulation of the truth, but there is no document which proves the accusations made against her. In the opinion of her biographers, "she experienced the ultimate fairy tale, becoming the adored favourite of the most glamorous bachelor of his time. The idyll went wrong when, ignoring her pleas, he threw up his position to spend the rest of his life with her."^[1] Academics agree that she ascended a precipice that "left her with fewer alternatives than she had anticipated. Somehow she thought that the Establishment could be overcome once [Edward] was king, and she confessed frankly to Aunt Bessie about her "insatiable ambitions"…Trapped by his flight from responsibility into exactly the role she had sought, suddenly she warned him, in a letter, "You and I can only create disaster together"…she predicted to society hostess Sybil Colefax, "two people will suffer" because of "the workings of a system"…Denied dignity, and without anything useful to do, the new Duke of Windsor and his Duchess would be international society's most notorious parasites for a generation, while they thoroughly bored each other…She had thought of him as emotionally a Peter Pan, and of herself an Alice in Wonderland. The book they had written together, however, was a Paradise Lost."^[2] The Duchess herself is reported to have summed up her life in a sentence: "You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance."^[3]

^ Bloch, The Duchess of Windsor, p.231
^ Weintraub, Stanley (8 June 1986), Washington Post: p.X05 ((citation)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Wilson, p.179

. DrKiernan 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs, Weintraub can purple his prose, can't he? I read his biography of Beardsley some years ago and was impressed; now I start to wonder. Well, now it's clear that the tragedy was hers (and perhaps hubby's). So some of my questions have evaporated. Yet the big one remains: Why are we reading all this about her? Why does she matter? -- Hoary 10:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it's of current relevance because of the Charles and Camilla marriage. He's married a divorced woman, and is still going to be King (presumably). Seventy years ago the outcome was very different. I haven't mentioned this here, although it is in the companion article Edward VIII abdication crisis, because I want this article to be about her life, not an historical comparison. DrKiernan 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.