Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert, Prince Consort

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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [1].

Albert, Prince Consort[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)
Original Oppose from User:Dweller

Looks good at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals problems. Has this had a third party copyedit recently? Has it had a recent Peer Review? Some comments:

  • I think you can afford to go to 4 parags of Lead, per WP:LEAD.
  • The Great Exhibition of 1851 having a section all to itself looks odd set against the scope of his life, as the other sections are dedicated to great chunks of his life.
  • An aside - popular thought has it that he introduced Christmas trees or cards or both to Britain. Worth a mention?
  • Ah... quite a lot of unsourced material in here. Some sample sentences are those beginning: "Albert was born in Schloss Rosenau...", "The death led to a re-arrangement of the Saxon duchies..." and, most worrying of the three I cite (because of apparent editorialising corssing NPOV) "Albert and his elder brother, Ernest, spent their youth in a close companionship scarred by their parents' turbulent marriage and eventual separation and divorce."
  • Unexplained use of italics in info box.
  • Some silly slips in the text, eg "Their mother was exiled from court and married, as her second husband, her lover, Alexander von Hanstein, Count of Polzig-Baiersdorf."
  • NPOV and PEACOCK issues, eg "a speech in which he expressed paternalistic, yet well-meaning and philanthropic, views" or sentence beginning "A man of relatively cultured and liberal ideas" (also unreferenced)

Sorry, but this needs too much work for FAC and needs to go (back?) to PR or a 3rd party c-e. It's a jolly good article and clearly a labour of love. You'll get there, but there's just too much to do for it to be nursed through here this time IMHO. The subject is fascinating... if I was well, I'd happily c-e it for you, but my time here is too limited just now. If you want to "wait" for me, please drop me a line to my user talk. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It says "three to four". Are you saying that there is pertinent information missing from the lead?
  • Sections re-organised.
  • Added: "Other myths about Prince Albert, such as the claim that he introduced the modern idea of Christmas to Britain or wore piercings, are dismissed by scholars as inventions.[1][2]"
  • "Schloss Rosenau" is supported by multiple references, e.g. [2]. The two other examples now referenced.
  • Styles are italicised to differentiate abbreviations of "Serene/Royal Highness" from initials. Foreign language words are italicised according to style guidelines. The rest is hard-coded in the infobox template.
  • Changed to: "After their mother was exiled from court, she married her lover, Alexander von Hanstein, Count of Polzig-Baiersdorf".
  • I don't mind removing "paternalistic, etc." It's from Weintraub but the other biographers don't use these words. I've expanded the quote from a published speech. "relatively cultured and liberal" is changed to "progressive and relatively liberal"; I think this is adequately shown by his support for emancipation, technological progress, science education, Charles Darwin, and the welfare of the working class. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has Dweller been asked to revisit? Please fix the Dabs identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is fixable in FAC with a good copyedit. The statements without citations are not so bad, as any bio of Albert is going to be able to give a cite, and I don't think it is controversial that his parents had a difficult marriage. I would like to see more about Albert the family man. By all accounts he had a very fulfilling romantic and sexual relationship with his wife. As for his children, to say that he felt that the intense educational regime he set up for the Prince of Wales was lost on him kinda begs the question. After all, he allowed Stockmar to put in that regime that probably scarred Albert Edward for life; to mention it in that way makes it sound like it was the son's fault that he didn't take to academics in that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've expanded on Edward's education, and his relationship with his father. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: The licensing of the images is fine, but I'd love to see the summaries neater by using an {{Information}} template, particularly in Image:Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Project Gutenberg etext 13103.jpg and Image:RoyalAlbertHall.jpg. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs, please rectify the dab links identified in the dabfinder in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amended again. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links all check out, sources look good. Suggest Burke's Peerage be listed with the source books - there are several citations to it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just replaced these references. We've had this discussion before. François Velde's work is in other areas [3] but here he was just being used to quote original documents (e.g. National Archives, HO 38/39, p.73–74), so I didn't think it was important. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works. When do you think the National Archives will start putting documents like this online? Some of the US ones are, which makes life nice! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As an Irishman I'm not normally inclined towards Victoria, but this article moved me. From the page I got the sence that the couple had a real bond and were very attracted to each other; something I had not known before. I gave a light ce, and am happy now with the prose. Its a charming article, and I'm pleased to S. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Could do with more pictures - Osbourne, Crystal Palace, a family photo?
  • On the marriage their ages should be worked in. If Victoria had not come to the throne at such a young age, she would have been unlikely to have had so much freedom in her choice. Also their exact blood relationship should be explained - was there concern over its closeness, and was haemophilia raised as an issue?
  • I thought, and our article agrees, he designed Osbourne House itself, with pros doing the actual drawings of course.
  • Personally I think his work on the Great Exhibition & Albertopolis, and his various commissions on trade and the arts should be expanded upon; it does deserve a full section. No link to his co-schemer Cole, or the V&A. This was surely his most visible area of activity in Britain, and the one with the most lasting results.
  • It is the Christmas Tree he is usually credited with introducing, and the link should be there - which gives a useful summary of the history, and his own limited role.
  • The relationship with Bertie is pretty thinly covered.
  • No mention of his art collecting and commissioning, and the significant collection made by him and given by Victoria at his request to the National Gallery.

Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two added.
  • Added "aged eighteen". Their young ages are already in the article e.g. "At the age of 20 he married his first cousin, Queen Victoria...Albert's future wife, Queen Victoria, was born in the same year with the assistance of the same midwife." Albert was considered very healthy. Hereditary haemophilia did not become apparent in the family until Prince Friedrich of Hesse and by Rhine was diagnosed in 1872. He was the second known case after Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany.
  • I shall work on this. Added. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the 1851 exhibition is deliberately short as the main details are in the main article. Cole is mentioned there. The V&A is already linked: "including what would later be named the Victoria and Albert Museum." I've been considering adding his work with the commission to redecorate the Houses of Parliament, but all the decisions were made after his death, and the final decorative scheme was not his.
Added work with the commission to redecorate the Houses of Parliament. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samuel Taylor Coleridge published his Christmas essay describing the German trees in 1809, and Felicia Hemans "painted bags of bonbons destined to adorn the boughs of the 'Christmas Tree'."[3] Both died before Albert came to Britain. There are other explanations for the rise of popular Christmas imagery during the 1840s and 1850s, including but not limited to: writers like Dickens publishing books drawing on German ideas; the importation of children's toys from Germany (where timber was cheaper and hence was used in toy manufacture; Germany cornered the European toy market) and the "Teutomania" of the time, when the (supposed?) shared heritage of the Nordic races was celebrated. I wouldn't want to expand on "Other myths about Prince Albert, such as the claim that he introduced the modern idea of Christmas to Britain are dismissed by scholars as inventions." but I would be happy to consider any suggested re-phrasing.
Replace "the claim that he introduced the modern idea of Christmas to Britain ..." with "the claim that he introduced the Christmas Treeto Britain ..." as suggested above. He is surely never credited with the Christmas card, whose 19th century origin is well known, but often with the tree, as covered in that article. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is similar to Wehwalt's point but his family life is already covered extensively in "Within two months of the marriage, Victoria was pregnant"; "All nine children survived to adulthood, a rarity then even among royalty, which is credited to Albert's enlightened influence on the healthy running of the nursery"; "in private the couple were more easy-going"; "In early 1844, Victoria and Albert were apart for the first time since their marriage"; "private residence for their growing family"; "Albert continued to devote himself to the education of his family...joining in family games with enthusiasm....felt keenly the departure of his eldest daughter for Prussia...thought that his intensive educational program was largely lost on his eldest son"; "Albert and Victoria were horrified by their son's indiscretion, and feared blackmail or scandal or, worse, pregnancy."
Now that you put it up, the language about the children surviving to adulthood is a bit peacocky. Minor children of the British monarch are not noted for dying under age 18, by my count, 33 of the 36 underage children of British monarchs (either born before or after accession) in the past 250 years have survived to age 18 (two of George III's 15 kids, and "The Lost Prince", Prince John, being the exception). I may make a friendly edit or two on the educational point I made above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "a rarity even among a royalty". DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, similarly to the Parliamentary decorative scheme, I've been considering adding this but it doesn't really signify anything unusual. All the royals were/are collectors. DrKiernan (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly nonsense, but even if it were true, that something is "usual" (marriage? children?) is no argument for not covering it. Albert, in notable contrast to the vast majority of British royals, would be notable as a collector and donator alone. This and the other replies above aren't really satisfactory at this level; for such an important figure, the article seems rather skimpy in the later sections. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of sentences on his private patronage and collecting. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I would like to see PMAnderson's comments addressed, as he appears to have identified several interesting additions to the text. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Make sure that there is a citation at the end of every sentence with a quote, even if that means duplicating citations in subsequent sentences
  • Any details on " Albert's enlightened influence on the healthy running of the nursery"?
  • Any details on what he tried to change or how successful he was -"used his position as Chancellor to campaign for reformed and more modern university curricula"?
  • I'm not sure about the fit of the Hardinge story. We aren't told what the findings were or how this impacted Albert other than he assisted the man. Is this anecdote really necessary for this article?

Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duplicated.
  • I shall have a look.
  • Added "successfully ...expanding the subjects taught beyond the traditional mathematics and classics to include modern history and the natural sciences."
  • Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further. I've made a few hopefully helpful edits. It's in the article that Parliament refused to make Albert a peer. (I almost wrote speer). Isn't that one up to the monarch?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If there was no opposition and no support, I guess the monarch can ennoble who they like. But in the face of substantial opposition, I guess they cannot. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is that grant of money to Albert was threatened. I'll check the 19th century books I have on the British Constitution, but I think in theory the monarch can ennoble who she wants. In practice, and being a young inexperienced monarch, I'd think that opposition could cow her.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that politicians could have opposed the peerage but they had no power to prevent or refuse it. Consequently, I have changed "Parliament refusing to grant him" to "Albert claimed that he had no need". DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is part of the "unwritten constitution", but the boot was already very much on the other foot - it was for governments to propose peerages (not actually voted on in Parliament), and as became very clear in 1910, the monarch was unable to do anything but sign them off. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given this do we even want to mention the piercing at all? It seems giving too much dignity to a modern urban legend. By the same logic, I guess we should mention that people called cigar stores and asked to have him let out of the can!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't complain when you removed it last time around but see Talk:Albert, Prince Consort#Prince Albert piercing. I don't mind if it is included as long as it is dismissed as a myth, but nor do I mind if it is removed as trivial claptrap. DrKiernan (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the talk page discussion, and based on that and the fact it is trivia and almost certainly a modern urban legend, I will apply the ax vigorously.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete. Comparing with the ODNB life (which is of course very full), I see the following missing:
    • His mother deserted her husband when Albert was five; I'm sure our author knows this, but the reader doesn't.
    • We should say Crystal Palace; we should also explain what Albert did; ODNB quotes Granville as saying that he was the only one "who has considered the subject both as a whole and in its details", and he did a great deal of necessary diplomacy.
    • Albert took charge of the Royal Household as a whole, not just the nursery; the lead has this, the text doesn't. His enlightened influence was partly child-rearing, but mostly a financial reform, disposing of the sinecures.
    • The purchase of Balmoral should ba made into a single paragraph. (The fact that it was a major expense for the Royal Family, made possible only by a large bequest from James Camden Nield, should be mentioned; it's a great difference from Elizabeth II's finances.)
    • Albert acted as representative of the Queen to Peel's government; Lord George Bentinck denounced his presence in Parliament during the Corn Law debates as partiality.
    • His educational measures included an information campaign about child labor, an exceptional note in Victorian politics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • Added Crystal Palace. Article already explains role as Chairman, and promoter. As this article is already long, the details should be in the parent article.
  • Changed "domestic affairs" to "the royal household".
  • Two Balmoral parts merged. Nield is not mentioned by Ames, Fulford or Hobhouse, so I would prefer to leave him out. I think the article should concentrate on those points agreed by all biographers as the key issues.
    • Added a few words (not the name) and removed dangling participle. That will satisfy me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • Added "supported moves to increase working ages" and "he spoke of the need for better schooling". DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Time to let Prince Albert out of the can and into the FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I had a request to re-visit. Will do. Can someone clever zip up my previous comments in one of those whizzy show/hide thingies? Ta. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second comments from User:Dweller
  • Differences in address details for Windsor castle and St. George’s Chapel look a little silly for anyone who knows they're at the same place
  • Infobox lists a German variation of his given names. Presumably that was what he was originally named and then it was later anglicised? This should be mentioned and reffed in the main article somewhere, along with a note of when the anglicised version was adopted.
  • Birthplace still unreferenced - a talk page comment doesn't really help
  • Lead claim "only husband of a British Queen regnant to have formally held the title of Prince Consort." seems unrepeated in main text and therefore uncited

More as I find 'em --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amended.
  • Removed. He was always Albert.
  • I've added hidden references, so that the attribution is clear for those with a deep interest, but the prose remains free and flowing for most readers.[4]
  • Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clearly improved after all the comments. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - 1. Too many redlinks. 2. Lead seems to need at least three more sentences. 3. Last paragraph of "reformer and innovator" could use a little more. 4. Text sandwiched in "marriage". Perhaps split top paragraph and move picture down to second paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Armstrong, Neil (2008) "England and German Christmas Festlichkeit, c.1800–1914. German History 26 (4): 486–503
  2. ^ Ferguson, Henry (1999). "Body piercing". British Medical Journal 319: 1627–1629
  3. ^ Hemans' sister, Harriet Mary Browne Owen, in an 1840 biography
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Albert,_Prince_Consort&oldid=1048940963"