Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernest Augustus I of Hanover/archive1

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 Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [1].

---

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ernest Augustus I of Hanover/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. Ernest Augustus. He slept with his sister, and had a son by her. He murdered his valet. He murdered Lord Graves. He was going to murder the Princess Victoria, if he could. At least this was the common perspective on the man in his day, though I don't think many people buy that today. As Duke of Cumberland, he was the least popular man in England. As King, he fired the Brothers Grimm, and it's always a poor idea to fire people who are good with a pencil and likely to outlast you. He was a reactionary, but he was an interesting man with an interesting career. I hope you find him so as well. I started work on this one as a new editor some years ago, but cleaned up my mistakes and did the job right this year. It has had a peer review, has been promoted to Good Article, and passed a MilHist A-Class review. Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources comments
• The first retrieval date is formatted differently from the other two.
• Is the Dieter Horst book in English (German publisher and location)? Does it have an ISBN?

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a comment in the references section about the Horst book; it does not have an ISBN. I changed the other two to match the first one, so that all dates are in identical format. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The hidden link goes to Der rote Faden, published by Tourismus Service in 2000. It is not clear whether the book you have listed is an English translation of Der rote Faden; can this be clarified? Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is put out by the CIty of Hanover Tourism Services and is at least available in English and German. I bought it for three euro when I was there a few years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• One awkward tag to fix. Otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Media review

File:Ernest Augustus I of Hanover.PNG, File:Ernest Augustus I of Hanover Signature.svg, File:Gainesboroughernest.jpg, File:1799cumberland.jpg, File:Ernest1802.jpg, File:Reformact1832cartoon.jpg, File:Knight of the Order of St Patrick.jpg, File:Ernst 1846 thaler.jpg, File:Ernest1850.jpg, and File:Erneststatue.jpg are all verifiable and appropriately labelled.

For File:Ernest1823.jpg the uploaded image is not the same as the image at the source.

The captions for File:A financial survey of cumberland.jpg and File:Tohanovertoken.jpg should probably have citations. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted cites for the captions. There are obviously multiple versions of that painting and as I cannot download the version from the Royal Collection and am unable to reliably source the other, I have struck it, at least pending further research Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a low resolution version of the Fischer miniature, if you're interested in using it: File:Ernest Augustus by Fischer 1823.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It is such a flattering portrait of the man that I wonder if it is the same guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments The images all follow the image use policy, and the article is comprehensive, neutral, stable, and of an appropriate structure and length.

There are a couple of points on verifiability that concern me:

1. "The 1800 Acts of Union had given millions of Irish Catholics representation in Parliament". I think this should be worded differently, as it currently gives the incorrect impression that these people had the vote. Sorry, I missed this at the peer review.
2. That Sophia had an illegitimate son. I appreciate that there are sources that say she did, but Anthony Camp has recently challenged this view. See also Morris Bierbrier's review of Camp's work in The Genealogist quoted by Camp at his website: "Princess Sophia is quoted as personally denying that the rumour about her having a child was true, but, as she ruefully remarked, it did not quell the gossip. Thomas Garth was presumably the bastard of General Garth by an unknown woman, not the Princess." I think I'm right in saying that Charles Greville (diarist) also thought the claim unlikely, if not outright rubbish.

I have changed this to say that Garth was "thought to be the illegitimate son ...".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Prose points:

1. In the final paragraph "Early life (1771–1799)" the repetition of "return to Britain" is a little jarring, as is the repetition of "Stralsund" in the final paragraph of the last section. Is it possible to amend this?
2. The paragraph "In early 1813, Ernest was involved..." needs work. The version from the 10 July is much clearer: I strongly urge you to revert.
3. I would much prefer to avoid switching tenses between present and past. This is most obvious in the penultimate paragraph of the "Politician" section, where the writer "wrote", "indicated" and "went" but is "observing", "noting" and "concluding".
4. Can "added his endorsement" be changed to "endorsed"?
5. The word "modern" is odd when used to describe an event in the 1840s. How about "improved sanitation in the City of Hanover, new gas lighting, and..."

Support Comments above and at peer review[2] are all addressed. For the benefit of the delegates: my edits to this article are only changes made during the peer review and FAC. DrKiernan (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made changes generally along the lines you've suggested, sometimes varying slightly in the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

• There's quite a few statements that don't have inline references to back them up. The first time I read this I noticed the second & third sentences of National Development and trade; 1848 crisis were uncited; I went back through again and there's at least one or two per section currently. This is a common thing in some of your other FA articles too so maybe its not a big deal.
• The British Royalty House of Hannover info box is in a strange place in the article - shouldn't it be underneath the main infobox like in the Victoria article? Kirk (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You might want to take note of the current discussion at WT:FAC#Are citations required at the end of every sentence?. It is not required that every sentence have a footnote at the end of it. It simply means that the material is from the next footnote. There is at least one footnote in every paragraph. Everything in this article is attributed. As for the infobox, it is extremely long, the article already has a fairly long infobox in the customary place. Were I to have left the second infobox (which is really just a listing of George III's children and grandchildren) where you suggest, I could have no images on the right side until the Sellis incident subsection. As two of the images of Ernest from before then face left, shifting those to the left side would present MOS issues and clutter the article. Given the limited utility of the House of Hanover secondary infobox, I think it is fine where it is, although I am open to alternative solutions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good to know, thanks for the link.
• The first sentence sounds like someone's opinion since its not in Van Der Kiste, and the second sentences needs to be improved (note: I blame Van Der Kiste for some shoddy writing)

Your text His support led to improved sanitation in the city of Hanover, gas lighting, and the development of a new residential quarter.

Source Before her death, he had given orders for improvements and alterations to the city of Hanover, including proper sanitation, gas lighting in the streets and a new residential quarter of terraces and squares. What the heck does 'proper sanitation' mean in this context? Maybe you can summarize the first three sentences to emphasize he kept the old palace from being torn down after his wife died.

I've written a new intro sentence which is closely based on what Geoffrey Willis says about the King's development plans.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you do something with improved sanitation - do you literally mean the wikilink definition or something else? Maybe one of your other sources gives better detail; I would just delete it. Kirk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of medieval towns, I would think it means at least a rudimentary sewer system rather than people throwing slop out the windows and having the town smell like whatsit until the next rains. However, I will do some reading in Willis tonight, he has the most comprehensive discussion of Ernest's time as King. Check back later, I've got to run now.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Having found no reference to sanitation in my other references, I am very reluctantly deleting it. Is there anything further you believe requires, er, improvement in the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from a google books snippet view, it's Bird who uses the term "improved sanitation". DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. The quote is "At the time of the Queen's death the King was going ahead with some improvements and alterations to the city of Hanover. This included improved sanitation and the restoration of the river Leine, which had become foul, to its former purity, gas-lighting in the streets and a new residential quarter of terraces and squares which was as good a piece of town planning as could be found." Then it goes on to discuss the Residence, and the Altes Palace thing. Unhappily, I don't think that answers Kirk's concern about what the "improved sanitation" was, although in combination with the river, it is very clear to me from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also an encyclopedia (that reads like a travelogue): "The older parts of the city are mean and unattractive, but since 1837, when by the accession of Ernest- Augustus, it became the residence of the Sovereign, [it] has undergone very extensive alterations and improvements ... recent improvements that have been effected in the old system of sewers, which dates from the 16th century, render the drainage particularly good". DrKiernan (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work! I feel better this was about the sewers and not hand washing. Kirk (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was curious why one image has a footnote for the caption and the others don't; I think you could add more.

Sorry, I just read DrKiernans comments above; I should be more specific. For File:Knight of the Order of St Patrick.jpg i think you should wiki link Knight Companion - the image's reference is difficult to verify which makes this one a little suspect unless you can reference it from one of your sources. For Reformact1832cartoon.jpg‎ your caption is based on the National Portrait Gallery source, I think you should reference that. file:Ernest1850.jpg‎ description doesn't match the source's description which uses his British title not his Hannoverian title ( probably not a big deal). For the Coin and you should wikilink 'thaler'. Kirk (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is on the item description page and in the underlying source, it is usual that you don't have to source it. Thus the cartoon does not have to be sourced. The two captions which are sourced are sourced because the captions contain a fair amount of background information, that is not true with the other captions. I will wikilink Thaler, but the fact that the British title is used for the one of him with the comfortable collar doesn't mean we can't use the German one. In 1850, he was King, and it would look odd to call him Duke of Cumberland. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take the offline source for the Knight Commander (linked) in good faith. Not everything is online; not everything has to be online.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the source, although the citation is missing the publisher that one is ok. Kirk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• That Hannover Infobox is absolutely gigantic; I guess you could delete the Gilray, move Eldrige to the left and make a nice sandwich in the Military Commander section, ugh. Maybe a smaller font for the Hannover Infobox?Kirk (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe about forty articles use that template; I cannot change one without changing the other 39, and I think it would be ill advised.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer it where it is: at the bottom of the article body. I see its current format in the manner of a See also link, which would be placed ordinarily just before the references but after the article body according to the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). As very short sections should be merged, and this is the only See also link, I think it wise to place it in the nearest section instead, in this case References. Otherwise, it is a navigation template and should be at the end of the article formatted as a navbox, but changes to the template should really be discussed at the template rather than the article or here. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I should note that of the 23 names in the box, 11 are linked in the article anyway. I am just going to leave it as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at some of the other articles and that box just goes wherever it fits in the article without any scheme as far as I can tell. Not a problem. Kirk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sellis incident and Marriage: Much of the public blamed Ernest for Sellis's death - I read the source & I don't know why early 20th century historians write this way, but they do. I could tag this except the second sentence actually specifies some newspapers so I would just delete it.

I disagree with you; please take note that WP:WEASEL deals with unattributed material. If I am accurately reflecting the source, it is perfectly proper to use such terms. The policy is designed to prevent obfuscation, that is not the case here. I will take a look and see what details I can add, but I am not expecting public opinion polls here. This reply is also for the other "weaselly" you indicate below.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this is something that can just be attributed to "oh, that is the way they wrote in the early 20th century." Take for example, Bird (1966) regarding the Sellis incident: "The public ... preferred spicier explanations" (p. 96). Wardroper (2002!) "Speculation was not silenced by the Sellis verdict". I could go on in this vein.

I'm very sympathetic to your argument; your source may have synthesized a boatload of information into 'Much of the public' or may just have been needless padding; I was trying to point out what I thought was padding. I crossed out a few I thought were ok. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph has nothing to do with Sellis or marriage. I think its too much detail for WP:Summary so I would delete it, but lets see if anyone else cares first.

Delete it? I do not think so, it certainly poisoned Ernest's relationship with the Commons. This article is not so complicated that it needs to vary from chronological order until the King section. Keep in mind this: It is not required that everything in a section be reflected in a section title. Sections are there for ease of reading and navigation, their titles are not indexes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have made a separate section for marriage; again, I'm curious if any other editors agree/disagree.

I don't know why you would have done that; that, in combination with your above suggestion, would leave a two-paragraph section about Sellis, which is probably too short to be convenient to the users.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Fulford, the book in our library is the a revised edition from 1973; the 1933 edition is kind of rare in worldcat so I was wondering how you had access to that one? Or maybe you meant the 1973 version?

No. I own the 1933 version.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't honestly believe there are weasel issues here. I do think that lumping two unrelated areas, the Sellis affair and Marriage, into a single section is odd, and even odder when they are separated by a paragraph that has nothing to do with either. I don't think that the Sellis matetrial is too short for its own subsection, and would recommend you subdivide. As the purpose of the third paragraph is apparently to show how Ernest's relationship with parliament was poisoned, I'd make this the firat paragraph in the "Politician" section, reading: "Ernest's relationship with parliament was damaged by his involvement, early in 1813, in a public scandal..." etc.

Major problem with that, Brian, is that then the reader lacks the context to understand the explanation of why the Commons turned down Ernest's increased allowance. Awaiting your reply, I will work on your comments below.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Politician: In 1826, Parliament finally voted the increase to Ernest's allowance. - another couple of Fulford sentences which needs attention - the increase in particular sounds strange.

Can you expand on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You could try "Parliament finally voted to increase Ernest's allowance". DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought; also ...had presented the increase as provision... -> ...argued the Duke needed an increased allowance to pay for... Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

More weasel words - A number of newspapers..., Many Whigs', many believed, most Tories.

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady Graves should be wikilinked & I'm not why her age and number of children was important.

There is no article about Lady Graves. As this is the only matter I am aware of for which she is mentioned in history books, I would suggest that an article is unlikely, and thus a redlink is not called for. I suggest that fifteen children take a toll on face and figure, and if Ernest's biographer felt it important enough to mention, so do I.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think red links are a problem in FA articles. You could consider a redirect to Lord Graves, that article has her basic info. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But Lord Graves is linked anyway, two sentences later, though his suicide is interestingly not mentioned in his article. I'm just going to leave it as is, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph, second sentence: ...(two girls having died in infancy)... I don't understand why this is in parens.

Because to my eyes anyway, it reads better.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Caps: Gold Stick is like 'duke' - the office of gold stick is currently held by Gold Stick Ernst. Wikipedia uses a different style for capitalizing titles than many sources which prefer caps all the time.

This search seems to indicate that even so, it would be capitalized. Perhaps British editors will weigh in on this question? I think it would look distinctly odd in the lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways, and as gold-stick, but I prefer Gold Stick as gold stick is a gold stick whereas Gold Stick is the Gold Stick; it's a way to distinguish between the office and the object. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the standard for wikipedia: WP:Job titles; I think it needs a definite article but after perusing the OED I have no idea what is right other than your source so unless someone has a better idea, leave it. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We have weird and wonderful court titles here; Gold Stick, Silver Stick, Black Rod, etc. They are all offices of state, always capitalised, no definite or indefinite articles. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

6th paragraph, more weasel words. Many among the public...

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Constitutional controversy

Weasel words: Many Hanoverians...

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One matter to which the King gave his early attention was the constitution. - you could rewrite this in a more active voice or delete it since the first sentence of the next paragraph is a good replacement.

I have struck the sentence entirely and will give some thought as to whether the paragraph now begins abruptly, and if so make appropriate changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Ernest Augustus by Fischer 1823.jpg - there's something fishy about this painting because I've seen almost the exactly the same picture on page 52 of Van Der Kiste except its full size portrait, it has a different author (Sir William Beechey), and it doesn't have the droopy right side of his face. I just thought I would mention it - everything about the image ok with Wikipedia:FA_Criteria_3. Kirk (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan's media review in this FAC should amply answer your question, I trust. Obviously the painter made a full-scale, and a miniature.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a portrait by Beechey of Ernest Augustus: it was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1802, but this picture here is the 1823 miniature by Fischer. They're both in the Royal Collection, but the Beechey isn't online whereas the miniature is. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to thank Kirk for his comments and his doing a review given his own article at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan knew what I meant; you are welcome and thank you for writing such an excellent article. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructive comments are always welcome because one perspective is never enough to write an article. I have added a number of quotes to the references that at least inform the reader that we are relying on the word of biographers as to public opinion in Georgian England. Are you able to take a position on whether this article should be promoted?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Some wikipedians may prefer less weasel words in FA articles, but I think its ready for promotion. Kirk (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the dearth of public opinion polls in Regency England, it's as good as we can do. And given the way I've been put through the wringer on this one, the delegate can be sure that these are serious and considered supports!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: I've made a suggestion above, here are a few more:-

• The "Politician" section has a lot of stuff in it (mainly scandals) that are not politics. I take your point that section titles are not indexes, but I believe they should give an informative idea of the section content. If I was only interested in Ernest's scandals and incestuous liaisons (heaven forfend!) I wouldn't think to look under "Politician". So can the section title be made broader?

• Aren't scandals and *rumors* of sexual liasons part of being a politician? I support the current title. Kirk (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Was Frederick William III Ernest's nephew? That would make him a grandson of George III which he wasn't. He was older than Ernest. Can you re-investigate what the relationship between the two was?

Professor WIllis does say nephew, but he is wrong. Frederick William was his wife's sister's husband. I have no idea if there's a term for that in English, so I'm omitting the family relationship.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Brother-in-law; her mother's sister was his aunt, making Frederick William his nephew-in-law; also they shared George I of Great Britain as a common ancestor, making him his third cousin. Kirk (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the relative description entirely. Given these interlinked families, it's kinda pointless for a throwaway description.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest link "Viceroy" and pipe-link "electorate" which has more than one meaning.
• It would help the flow if a date was given for the formation of the Steuerverein. This word is only linked to German Wikipedia, and as one without much knowledge of German I don't know what the term means.

None of my sources give a definition. As we've mentioned, I prefer an interwiki link to a redlink, as at least google translate is available. Searching references for date of formation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do you "engage" a house? You can rent one or lease one or buy one, but "engage" reads very oddly.
• I read quite swiftly and the prose generally flowed well, though I did notice a couple of awkwardnesses:-
  • "At the time the King took the throne, the city of Hanover was a densely-packed residential city, and did not rise to the grand style of many German capital cities" Clunky repetition of city/cities
  • "He hosted the King of Prussia in June, for Ernest's 80th birthday" There must be a neater formulation, e.g. "In June Ernest celebrated his 80th birthday by playing host to..."

All in all, though, the usual hallmarks of thorough research combined with easy readability are present in abundance. I am constantly amazed by the range and international scope of Wehwalt's articles, which run from Borat to this, via Italian opera, German football and Richard Nixon to name but a few. I can't keep up. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, and this from a editor whose articles span the globe from pole to pole! I am truly complimented.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes Brian suggested, and split up the Sellis section somewhat differently for the reason I stated above. I changed the "Politician" subsection title to "Politician and unpopularity".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes that have been made; they satisfy all my (slight) concerns. Ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Three supports, no opposes, sources and images have been checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.