Talk:Caroline of Ansbach/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert/discuss if you don't like.
   • For an article of this length, WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The article currently has just two, and they look quite lopsided with one at one sentence and the other at a relatively bulky full paragraph.

   • I attempted to expand the lead. Please let me know what you think. Ruby2010 talk 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • There are two dab links, one to Charles Maitland and one to Incognito. For the first, I wasn't sure which (if any) it was, and for the second, couldn't decide if you would want to link to anonymity or if there were a wiktionary link that might be better.

   • Done Ruby2010 talk 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Lead, "the enlightened court". I think you mean it was part of the Age of Enlightenment, but am not sure. Could we either link or reword?

   • I wikilinked it with Age of Enlightenment. Ruby2010 talk 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Education, "a desert". Is this link really necessary?

   • I removed the wikilink :) (it was meant to help set it apart from the food, but I suppose that's pretty obvious). Ruby2010 talk 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Marriage, "Caroline was also one of the princesses considered for the Spanish crown.[3] In June 1705, Caroline's first cousin, George Augustus," This is an abrupt jump. For a minute I was trying to figure out what George Augustus had to do with the Spanish crown...

   • Done (moved it to previous paragraph). Ruby2010 talk 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Princess of Wales, "Caroline struck up a friendship with politician Sir Robert Walpole. In 1720, he and Caroline helped to effect a reconciliation between the King and her husband." Again, an abrupt jump. We were just discussing her children, and then we jump to a relationship with what appears at first to be a random politician. Perhaps a bit more information is needed on how he helped to effect this reconciliation, as well as maybe an easier transition between the preceding paragraph and this one? Then in the next paragraph we make another large leap to her intellect...

   • I moved that part to a previous paragraph to help with flow. Ruby2010 talk 16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

   • A bit more information on how they affected this reconciliation would be nice, especially as King George II is later said to have denounced Walpole over the terms of this reconciliation. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Princess of Wales: You say that Caroline was aware of George's infidelities, but what did she think of them? Did she not care, did she hate them, etc.

   • From what I have read, Caroline did not seem to mind, as it was accepted behavior for the time. One of the women (Henrietta Howard) was one of Caroline's ladies-in-waiting, and the queen made no objection to their affair (according to Mark Hichens, author of Wives of The Kings of England); he wrote "at an early stage in their marriage Caroline accepted George Augustus had taken a mistress... Unlike her mother-in-law Sophia Dorothea, she showed no resentment, made no scenes and never played the role of injured wife; nor did she take a lover of her own." Ruby2010 talk 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Queen and regent, "denounced Walpole as a "rogue and rascal" over the terms of their past reconciliation," I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this? I don't recall reading that George and Walpole had reconciled (just that Walpole had helped reconcile the two Georges), and why did the King think that he was a rogue and rascal?

   • That particular sentence has been revised. Hopefully it should be clearer now. Ruby2010 talk 16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Final years, "against supposititous children," What kind of children?

   • That should be "supposititious", i.e. false substitutes for a child either dead or non-existent.

   • Final years, "My God, that doesn't prevent it". Doesn't prevent what? Was she saying that it was basically the same thing?

   • Having a wife doesn't prevent a husband from having a mistress.

   • Legacy, "It is probable that between Anne Boleyn, who promoted the Protestant Reformation, and Prince Albert, who determined foreign policy," I'm probably missing something very obvious, but what is the connection between Caroline, Anne Boleyn and Prince Albert?

   • They're all consorts.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • It seems redundant to give full information for the Taylor ODNB ref in both the Notes and Sources sections.
   • No Notes entry for the Maclagan ref.
   • Any particular reason the Williment and Boutell references aren't in split format like the rest?

   • I fixed the ref issues, and will address your other comments soon (at work currently, don't have time :) ) Ruby2010 talk 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • A few points (listed above) that I think could be fleshed out a bit more, but overall good.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a very nice article! I had a few comments about prose (with some minor things that I think could stand to be expanded on a bit more) and referencing, so I am placing the review on hold to allow these to be fixed/discussed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the article should be complete now. Please take a look at our edits and responses. Thanks! Ruby2010 talk 16:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I have made a few final tweaks, and I am now passing the article to GA status. There is one thing above on which I would like to see some further information inserted in the article, but since it really goes above and beyond the GA "broadness" criteria I am passing the article without the information being present. Nice work on this article! Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ruby2010 talk 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)