Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary of Teck

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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Mary of Teck[edit]

Queen Consort of George V of the United Kingdom – Peer review • Talk • history

Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the article, but I noticed a couple of things. The article doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)—specifically, I see hyphens used where en dashes should be. The fair use rationale of Image:Mary of Teck.jpg is a little weak. On somewhat of a side note, that image should be removed from articles where it does not qualify as fair use. Choker, for example. Pagra shtak 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dashes inserted. DrKiernan 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can insert en dashes and em dashes with the edit box when you're in edit mode without the need for HTML code. Some of your – codes you inserted were replacing existing en dashes. En dashes and hyphens look very similar in the monospace edit window, but you can tell easily when you preview. Not a big deal though. I cleaned up the dashes and corrected some some others. Please check my edit and make sure I didn't miss any. Thanks, Pagra shtak 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent article, definitely of featured quality in my opinion (I mean, what else is there to know about her? We even find out, in a Pooterish detail, that she was big in the needlework community). I don't have the reservation about the prose that I had for Wallis Simpson: this one reads very cleanly, and in places the prose strikes me as encyclopedically exemplary (the essential information in the clearest language).

A few minor points:

Her background: I felt the lack of an explanation of why an English woman had a foreign title and background. I gradually worked it out by looking at the tables, etc., but the reader might need slightly more help at the beginning, where I presumed I was going to be reading about a foreign consort, which up to that time had been the usual thing.

Amended the lead.

There they were joined by their six children: Edward, Albert, Mary, Henry, George, and John.

For me, this was phrased a little strangely, as it sounds as if a stork had passed over the house and parcel-dropped the children one afternoon. I didn't copy edit it because I'm not entirely sure how long they all lived there (or I might have changed it to "brought up their six children").

Isn't that how babies are delivered?

I would have liked a touch more detail on Prince John. The article said he'd been "kept away" on the Sandringham estate, but since they already lived on the Sandringham estate, I think it needs to be made slightly clearer what was going on. I've changed it to "hidden away"; was he not even allowed to live in the cottage with them? I do remember seeing Poliakoff's television play about him, but I don't know how accurate it was. It seems to me that the question of John's treatment is crucial to our sense of Mary as a mother.

I've amended this slightly.

In the quotation "Her soft voice...", my copyediting fingers itched to put a comma after "treasures", but I don't know if there was one in the original quote.

There's no comma in my version.

We hear that George became ill and died, but not what of.

Amended.

"she supported the war effort by visiting troops and factories, and helping to gather scrap materials"

Could this be made slightly clearer? At the moment I have a picture of her tottering about in her high-heels, helping out a couple of rag-and-bone men.

:-)

Some ISBNs missing. Not a big deal, but it's a shame not to have them when the article is so meticulously referenced.

Anyway, congratulations. Another fine article by the docmeister.qp10qp 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, your edits have certainly improved it! DrKiernan 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very nice. --maclean 19:00, 24 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.