Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Alfred of Great Britain/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 via FACBot (talk) 29 November 2022 [1].

Prince Alfred of Great Britain[edit]

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Prince Alfred of Great Britain, the fourteenth child of George III. Recently, I was able to promote Alfred's brother Octavius to FA status, and since I have already received a plethora of helpful feedback and gathered sources for said article, I thought I might as well improve that of Alfred, too. Despite promising Johnbod that my next FA nomination would be more substantial, I thought it would be prudent to work on this short article before I move on to anything too serious.

I apologize for the article's short length in advance, however, the poor prince did pass at the age of one. I have tried to address all concerns posed in Octavius's FA review, and I have learned a lot from my first FA nomination. I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I will do my best to resolve everyone's comments. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_Apotheosis_of_Prince_Octavius_-_West_1783.jpg: is a direct source link available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would this count as a direct source link? Is so, I can add it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have just done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "When he was around two years old" - I would say "When he was nearly two years old", as "around two years old" implies anything between one and three
  • "his elder brothers were already nearly adults" - all of his elder brothers? If not, and it was actually only a couple, I suggest changing it to "eldest brothers"
  • "His godparents were his elder siblings George, Prince of Wales; the Prince Frederick; and Charlotte, Princess Royal.[6][7][3]" - refs in wrong numerical order
  • "The sickness proved too much" - what sickness? No sickness has been mentioned.....
  • "the doctors inspected him and realized" - UK subject so the last word should be "realised"
  • "his elder brother Octavius succumbed to the smallpox virus" - no need to link smallpox again
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude All done! Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: humblest apologies, could have sworn I already did. Must be getting mixed up. Let me take another look...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe comments[edit]

  • Windsor Castle is a duplicated link twice over
  • "were already nearly adults" Do we assume the reader understands exactly what adulthood might be defined as in the 1700s? Might be worth adding an actual year or two to avoid confusion
  • "the Prince Frederick"? Doesn't seem necessary here. Have you mixed up "Prince Frederick" with "the Prince Bishop of Osnaburgh", which is what the source actually calls him?
  • Why do some royals get their titles and others don't? E.g. we've got "Prince Frederick" and "Charlotte, Princess Royal", but only "Sophia" and "Elizabeth".
  • "...face, and throughout his life, a cough." Comma needs moving to "...face and, throughout his life, a cough."
  • While this not a source review, I note that "his birth was no surprise" is not mentioned in any form in the source cited.
  • "proved too much for the Prince to handle" This is rather vague. Can we say what was wrong with him?
  • "horseback riding would improve his condition" Again, not a source review, but the source in question doesn't mention horse riding. Furthermore, p. 293 does not discuss this period; I think you're looking for pp. 291–292. I've since found the reference to horse riding in Fraser, 2004, p. 75.
  • "including an old woman to whom he waved" What makes this more than trivia?
  • "In spite of his charming disposition" What? Did they expect his charming disposition to fight off the spots?
  • "his chest was troubling him" Fraser terms this as if it were an ongoing issue, but you haven't mentioned it before?
  • "..., but later that month," should be "...but, later that month,"
  • Suggest adding that, per Hadlow p. 292, his deterioration included not being able to walk
  • "When he returned to Windsor in August 1782" Repeating the year is unnecessary. Also, per Hadlow, he seems to have returned to Windsor specifically because his condition had worsened?
  • The source says nothing about an "inspection" of Alfred, only that they "convened...to discuss his case"
  • Alfred does not die at Windsor Castle. Per Fraser he dies at Lower Lodge, which in is Windsor Great Park.
  • Might be worth noting that Mrs. Cheveley, his nurse, was also present at Deal and back at Windsor.
  • "20 August 1782" Again, why repeat the date?
  • "not even two years old." Better to say that he was still only one year old?
  • "(it was not prescribed for royal children younger than fourteen)" Fraser disagrees with this, saying "it was not prescribed in the case of deaths of children under the age of seven"
  • you have not noted Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz to be "the Queen" exactly
  • "August 1782" Again, we know it's still 1782"
  • Why is Lady Charlotte suddenly "Finch" instead?
  • Worth mentioning that, per Fraser, the hair was given in "lockets of pearl and amethyst"?
  • Per Fraser the king noted that he would have been much more unhappier if it had been Octavius who had died which, while you mention it as an aside later on, could be highlighted
  • You do not provide the date of the burial in the main text, although it is in the infobox
  • Would probably work better to have the death of Octavius and the visit to the Gainsborough painting in chronological order
  • "During one of his bouts of madness..." While this sentence has a note attached, it is not itself referenced
  • Note 1 is unreferenced at the end and is pretty OR-like. Are we suggesting that the two eminent historians might have provided a date when the king was not mad or alive?
  • Jeremy Black can be linked in the aforementioned note.
  • Amelia was born on 6 August, which I hardly is almost exactly the date of his death. What's the point in including this?
  • Ref. #34 seems to make no mention of Alfred at all?
  • Ref. #35 has no page number.
  • Why is "Title and style" unreferenced?
  • Worth mentioning in text that he was a member of the House of Hanover.
  • For the sake of consistency it would be useful for the first introductions of George III (main text and infobox) to be in the same style, e.g. adding "King" to the infobox or removing it from main text
  • Ref. #20 could do with an access date I believe?
  • Why is Ref. #36 not listed in the bibliography and cited in short form as every other printed source is?
  • "When he was nearly two years old, Alfred became ill" Are we sure that he became ill "when he was nearly two"? Text doesn't say either way when exactly it began
  • "was a complete shock to their parents as both children were healthy. " Not explicitly noted in main text
  • Link George's madness in main text as you do in the lede

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, thank you for all these suggestions. I have gone ahead and taken care of all of them, save for one of them due to some clarifying questions I have. When you said "Note 1 is unreferenced at the end and is pretty OR-like. Are we suggesting that the two eminent historians might have provided a date when the king was not mad or alive?", I did not understand what you meant by that. The note means to say that George III's imaginary conversations could have occurred in either 1811 or 1812, but both years are possible since they line up with the King's recorded mental illness during that time. Would you mind clarifying? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: The last sentence of that note is not referenced. While I won't go through the rest of your edits until you're done, I do note that by changing Lady Charlotte Finch's name to "Lady Finch" you've actually made the article more wrong. She should either be "Lady Charlotte", "Lady Charlotte Finch", or "Finch", but never the aforementioned combination. My comment re that point is that you went from consistently calling her "Lady Charlotte" to switching to "Finch". Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support but note to the nominator that even this was teetering on the edge of being too brief for my liking; would take a good look at any possible nominations of a similar size before nominating. 19:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7[edit]

Disclaimer: I'm only getting started with FA reviewing so please let me know if my comments missed the mark.

  • For the sentences "In June, he was taken to Deal with his governess Lady Charlotte Finch and nurse Mrs. Cheveley to recover" and "In August, Prince Alfred, Lady Finch, and Mrs. Cheveley returned": "Mrs." is American English and should be replaced with the British "Mrs"
  • The section "Title and style" contains only one sentence. It might be better to merge the text into another section.
  • earwig shows potential copyvios in regard to [2]. But this is a wordpress blog so it's probably them who copied the information. For example, the sentence "Although the household did not go into mourning..." is found in both in almost the same expression. But the blog entry is dated 2015 and this expression is already found in our article in 2014.
  • The following book references have no ISBN: Sheppard 1894, von Ammon 1768, Walpole 1891, and Watkins 1819. That might be because of their age but I checked for Shappard 1894 and I was able to find the ISBN "9781162997247" of a reprint here.
  • Some ISBN use dashes and others don't. Should they all use the same convention?
  • It's true that the article is very short. It could be expanded by adding some background information on Alfred's family. One could include more information on who his parents were, what responsibilities they had, what occupied them at the time Alfred was born, etc. This could be done in a new section or by renaming the "Life" section to "Life and background".
  • Another content idea would be to talk about the general situation concerning smallpox at the time and that his parents tried to protect Alfred (and his siblings) by having them inoculated. [3] has more information on this but I'm not sure whether this constitutes a reliable source. You are probably the better judge of whether these content ideas make sense.
  • There are 4 wikilinks to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz,Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz) and 5 wikilinks to George III (George III of Great Britain, bouts of madness, later bouts of madness, George III, George III). Normally, there should be only two: one in the lead and one in the body. Some of these wikilinks occur in templates like the infobox and some link to subsections in the article. I'm not sure about the guidelines in these cases.

I hope these comments were helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Some points addressed, with some exceptions I'd like to discuss further. Please reach out to talk about this if you'd like.
  • Concerning your second point, this has previously been discussed at the FA nomination of Prince Octavius, but there was no consensus. As it stands now, Prince Octavius of Great Britain (and countless other royalty articles) still has a "Titles and styles" section, so I'd like consistency. If you feel strongly about this, I will gladly change it, but I would like to point out that the information in this section would sound out of place in the main article.
  • As for your fourth comment, I am unable to locate ISBN numbers for the specific editions of the sources, and reprints would not work because they would have different page numbers than the cited text.
  • About your sixth point, I am hesitant about going off on a tangent about unrelated information. If I did so, the majority of the article would just be a description of George III and Queen Charlotte, which can be found at their respective articles.
  • Concerning your seventh point, you are correct: that is not a reliable source. I do like your argument, however. I will look for more information about contemporary smallpox. (please ignore the green: that is to help me remember that this is something I need to do)
Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. Your explanations make sense. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: I have just added some information on smallpox:
"During the time of Prince Alfred, smallpox was a disease dreaded by royalty and commoners alike, and due to a lack of medical development, it was frequently fatal. Around 1796, Edward Jenner introduced inoculation, a novel method of smallpox immunisation. Queen Charlotte, Alfred's mother, was a lifelong advocate of inoculation, and she had the royal children undergo the procedure. Variolation, its precursor, was popularised in Britain when the daughters of King George II, then Prince of Wales, underwent the procedure in 1721."
Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this information is really helpful. I've checked a few of the sources in the meantime:
  • "Prince Alfred was born on 22 September 1780, at Windsor Castle.[2][3]" claim supported by ref 3, I don't have access to ref 2
  • "Six months after Alfred's death, his elder brother Octavius succumbed to the smallpox virus, further devastating the King,[28]": claim supported by ref 28
  • "During one of his bouts of madness in 1812, George had imaginary conversations with his two youngest sons.[28]": claim supported by ref 28
  • "although he was more deeply impacted by the latter's death.[31]": claim supported by ref 31
  • "and due to a lack of medical development, it was frequently fatal.[11]": claim supported by ref 11
  • "Variolation, its precursor, was popularised in Britain when the daughters of King George II, then Prince of Wales, underwent the procedure in 1721.[13]": claim supported by ref 13
  • "Prince Alfred died between four and five in the afternoon on 20 August,[19][20] at Lower Lodge, Windsor Great Park, only one year old.[21][22]" I think ref 22 should be moved to refs 19 and 20: it contains information about 20 August but not about the location or his age, see [4]. I didn't check the other refs.
  • "though his remains were later moved to the Royal Vault in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820.[25][26][27]": claim is supported by refs 25 & 26. Ref 27 talks about the disinterment of Alfred and Octavius on 10 February 1820 but does not mention the rest, see [5]. Should it be removed?
Phlsph7 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 All done! Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Phlsph7, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder, I'll take a final look soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All the points raised have been addressed and the article looks good to me now, so I'm happy to support. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Phlsph7 thanks for reviewing and welcome to FAC! (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AryKun[edit]

Resolved comments
  • Link Windsor Castle at first mention instead of in Death and aftermath.
  • Link queen consort, perhaps?
  • "adult-age" Why the hyphenation?
  • Inoculation is linked in the lead and not the text.
  • As for the extra detail discussed above, perhaps you could add how exactly smallpox inoculation worked back then (I think it involved using sores from infected people to give other a "weak" version of smallpox, right?) and why it had such a high fatality rate.
  • You use Windsor to refer to both the castle and Windsor Great Park, and the unspecified term could also be confused with the town. I think expanded forms like "Lower Lodge, Windsor Great Park," would be much clearer.
  • Perhaps the Title and style section could in some way be incorporated into the infobox? AryKun (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AryKun Thank you. I have addressed all your comments/will be addressing them in conjunction with the comments above. I will say, however, that unfortunately, Wikipedia's infobox system does not have a parameter for royal titles like "HRH" or "Prince of ___". It does have a title parameter, although I believe that would be inappropriate to use in this situation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AryKun: I have just added information on smallpox. To see it, please take a look at the article or the reply I left to Phlsph7 above. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, nice work, supporting on the basis of prose now. AryKun (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated.

Source review[edit]

  • All titles should be in title case for consistency
  • All books should have either an ISBN for modern books or an OCLC # for older ones. Both can be found on Worldcat.
  • A few spotchecks made with no issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66 All done. Thank you for informing me about OCLC, I didn't even know that existed! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed an OCLC # for Sheppard and don't forget to capitalize the title in the Riedel article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66 Oops, how embarrassing. All taken care of. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the exact same things myself many times. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:19, 29 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Prince_Alfred_of_Great_Britain/archive1&oldid=1124576896"