Talk:Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 9, 2007.
British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Scotland
 Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

Contents

[edit] DYK

Did I know that Charlotte Stuart was the illegitimate daughter of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the secret mistress of the Archbishop of Bordeaux? Well, as a matter of fact I did! Image:Smile.gif All the more reason for me to say thanks for expanding this article and bringing it to the front page. Good work. --House of Scandal 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fact tagging

All/most of the sentences that have been tagged with {fact}, are taken from Kybert's book. The book is already cited six times in the footnotes, and in the bibliography. Do we really need it cited after every sentence?--Docg 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, per WP:V. Any statements that are likely to be challenged need to be cited. The reader doesn't know that they all come from the same book - you have to tell the reader that, tedious though it may be (I tried to select the sections of the article that I felt could be challenged; they were carefully considered fact tags). Wikipedia tends toward the conservative side on citation, meaning "when in doubt, cite", particularly in GA and FA articles. Awadewit | talk 09:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

This article was very entertaining to read and it is quite close to GA, but it still needs a bit of work.

  • The most important item to fix is the sourcing. Much of the article was unsourced - whole paragraphs would go by without a citation. I have added fact tags where I think there should be citations.

done


  • I would also tone down some of the language; while the article was entertaining, I wonder about adjectives such as "miserable". Something to keep in mind. Wikipedia is not a novel. :)

done - but it isn't boring either is it?


fixed - it is a short article, so the lead will also be short
  • The headings in this article are not intuitive: Life, Reconciliation, Descendants. Try to break up Charlotte's "Life" into logical, chronological sections rather than labeling one whole section "Life" (the subsequent section also deals with her "life", so it is confusing to the reader).
fixed
  • I would explain what the "Jacobite rising" was so that sentences such as However, by this stage the Jacobite pretensions were farcical anyway make sense later on.
done


  • The third paragraph of "Reconciliation" offers some personal details for the first time, but they are hard for the reader to put into context because we have had so inkling of Charlotte's character before this. For example, what was Charlotte's relationship with her mother? Could more along this line be added?
Sources don't give that information. I can't invent it.


  • They were brought up in anonymity, their identities concealed by a variety of alias and ruses, not even being mentioned in Charlotte’s detailed will. - Intriguing - do we know what these were?
That's what my sources say. I've no more.


  • Occasionally it has been suggested that Prince Charles married Clementina Walkinshaw, and thus that Charlotte was, in fact, legitimate and could legally claim to be her father's successor. - By whom? Such statements are most important to substantiate and make as clear as possible.
Removed for now


  • "References" should be in their own section (see WP:LAYOUT).
Done
  • Could a family tree be added to the page?
done
  • Might dates be added to the captions of the paintings?
Can't find the dates in my sources

An enjoyable read; some work and I am sure it will pass GA. If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Whilst I don't agree with all of this, it is helpful. The article is largely sourced from the Kybert book, so I'm not sure what you expect here, a reference to the same book at the end of each sentence? The lead sums up who she was and her significance. I see no real need for more in a shortarticle. We don't anything about her relationship with her mother - the sources for her life are scant - I suspect there's no more we can say. I've reordered the headings. Dates are unavailable for the paintings. I'll take another look at the prose, though.--Docg 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have pased the article as a GA. This seems an excellent article, a good article indeed. I can see no faults. I am happy to say it is a GA. Giano (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Is there much point in having a bunch of rare out-of-print books listed for further reading? Especially when some sources indicate they are of dubious reliability?--Docg 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. Hettie Tayler's book is mentioned in the text of the article, as are Charlotte's letters, and Lady Buchan was a notable author writing about a notable figure. DrKiernan (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then would they not be better as foonotes, since most readers will find them inaccessible for "further reading". Only a small % of readers will have access to a university library with inter-library loan facilities. When I see "further reading", I expect books I can actually read.--Docg 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)