Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

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 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough[edit]

Self nomination. I believe this article meets the Featured Article Criteria. It is of a suitable length; in-line citations have been used clearly; images are relevant, have no copyright restrictions, and contain suitably detailed captions. References have been ordered by surname and web links have been correctly formatted. It passed the Good Article review, and the reviewer suggested it be nominated for Featured Article status once the issues he detailed had been fixed. These have now been resolved. The content is relevant and does not go into too much detail.PeterSymonds 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (Disclaimer: I was the GA reviewer.) This article is well-researched, beautifully written and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. The article clearly articulates its main points and engages the reader. Well done. Awadewit | talk 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This appears to be very comprehensive. My only complaint would be that the wording describing her fall from favor and reinstatement could be just a bit clearer. I was confused at first before I read it carefully. Her fall from favor in 1811 was final with Anne, but after Anne died in 1814, Sarah returned to favor. The important thing to mention is that the death lead to the reinstatement, and this would solve this problem in the LEAD and other places. Just a couple of words would do the trick.--Filll 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out PeterSymonds 15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Sorry to take so long to vote on this but I started to read it thoroughly and then finding out many things I did not know going off to check them and then getting caught in diverting tangents. This page is great - truly the sort of page I enjoy reading. I particularly love the lead image, this article does not even have a horrible info box - truly amazing. I wish I had written it. I look forward to seeing on the main page very soon. Giano 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your support and very kind comments! PeterSymonds 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is a very good article and in my opinion within touching distance of FA quality. The fact that you have used excellent sources is a great strength. I have a list of points and queries, but none is major: if they are addressed, I am sure I'll be able to support.

Noting that this is the nominators's first major article, I urge him not to be daunted by my nitpicks. (I've been put through the most colossal sets of requirements at FAs myself and managed to come through, making the articles better in the process.) Beyond my comments below, the article also needs a thorough copy edit, in my opinion. This is probably best done by someone other than the author; so I'll have a bash myself. (Please feel free to change back any of my edits you don't like, of course.) Meanwhile, thanks for this valuable article; I enjoyed reading it very much.

If you could note (no need for green ticks) when any points are addressed, I'll look at each one again.

  • After Sarah's dismissal in 1711 and revival of favour in 1714, she devoted her time to building projects such as Blenheim Palace, and campaigning on behalf of the Whigs. Did she do this only after 1714, or between 1711 and 1714 as well? (I know the answer, but I don't think it's clear from the wording.)
Addressed. Could you possibly take a look at this change? It doesn't seem to flow well but it could just be me. Thank you in advance for your help. PeterSymonds 13:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better, I think.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the two connected. For me, this needs to be more precise. Did they fall in love, become attracted to each other, want to marry?
Addressed.
  • It is likely that John hoped to have Sarah as a mistress to replace the recently departed Duchess of Cleveland. I'm not sure what "departed" means here.
Addressed. She went to France because she fell out of favour with Charles II; I think it would be too much to put this detail in, so I've simply put "who had recently departed for France." If you think it should be different please feel free to change it and/or let me know PeterSymonds 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, now I see.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention the revolution of 1688, which was surely one of the most momentous events in Sarah's life. I don't feel that the event is adequately explained in the body of the text, either, where we are told that James had Sarah and Anne arrested but not really why. I think it should be mentioned that Sarah's husband deserted the king for William of Orange.
Addressed. Quite right, the Revolution should have been mentioned in the lead. I've also added the reason why Anne and Sarah were imprisoned at Whitehall PeterSymonds 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has helped a lot.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • placed under house arrest at the Cockpit in the Palace of Whitehall. I fear I don't know what the Cockpit is.
Addressed. Changed to Anne's residence. The Cockpit was the old Tudor cock-fighting pit. It was converted into a residence and given to Anne by Charles II after her marriage to George of Denmark. I'll put a note by "Anne's residence" explaining this. PeterSymonds 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned something there. I wonder if it should be red-linked, for someone to write an article about in the future?qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader has to work out that Sarah was a Protestant. But that's a significant piece of information, for this period. I'd suggest that the religious context be introduced earlier. Sarah's Protestantism helps explain her support for Anne, for William and Mary over James, for the Whigs, and her choice of marriage partner.
Added a bit about her being a Protestant in the marriage section. It is placed in but I'm not sure how well it fits. Perhaps you could take a look and see if you could improve it. PeterSymonds 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's there: that's the main thing. It seems fine.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Sarah implied that she had acted for the safety of Princess Anne, it is more likely that she was protecting herself and her husband. Acted/protecting in what way? We have only been told that she was arrested and then escaped.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Anne dismiss Sarah (I can guess, but what reasons did she give?).
Addressed. In the end, Anne refused to give a reason (in fact, the only thing she really said to Sarah at their final meeting was, "anything you have to say, you may put it in writing." It was really just years of trying the Queen's patience with all the things detailed earlier in the article, so I've put this in. PeterSymonds 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading a fair bit of the article, I was starting to feel the lack of a description of Sarah's personality. This finally comes in "Death and legacy", which is rather late. And might we have an insight into Sarah's relationship with her husband?
I still feel she's not fully coloured in, though there are some better touches now. The introductions to your sources might be good places to look for some general material about her character.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more under "clash of personalities" section. I think this basically sums up Sarah's character; it didn't change much in her long life. Best thanks, PeterSymonds 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flattering, subtle and retiring, Abigail was everything that Sarah was not. At this point, I don't feel the reader has been told what Sara was.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way you have created an antithesis.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have a look at these myself, but em dashes need to be unspaced, quotations marked with double quote marks, and numbers broken with a comma every three spaces (they are required in the numbers in the next example, for example).
Addressed (I think). Might be best for you to go over and see if I've missed anything. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubled a few quote marks. I think we've both missed some of the number commas, but the job's pretty much done. It might be worth your checking out the Manual of Style before your next major article, and the citation formatting guidelines, not that there's much to worry about at the microlevel here.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article hasn't made its mind up whether to capitalise words like queen, duke etc. I won't copyedit those because approaches vary (but should be consistent within each article). My preference would be to not capitalise when the titles aren't attached to a name. So: "the queen", but "Queen Anne".
Addressed–followed your advice PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs another glance, for words like "duchess". It's a nightmare, I know. Usage guides don't agree on one system, so we almost have to go by personal preferences and stick with them, unless we're following existing conventions in an article.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne countered by offering the Marlboroughs a pension of £5000 a year, as well as £2000 extra from the Privy Purse, and they accepted the Dukedom. Was this £2,000 also per year? And where did the pension money come from, if not from the Privy Purse? Parliament? (The sentence impliest a significant distinction.)
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite now being the most powerful woman in England other than the Queen, she was infrequently at court after 1705, preferring to oversee the progress of her new estate, Woodstock Manor (the site of the later Blenheim Palace)... What does "oversee the progress" mean here? The Blenheim Palace article says that it was begun in 1705, which is quite soon after the date mentioned.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During their youth, Anne chose two names for them at random: Mrs Freeman (Sarah) and Mrs Morley (Anne). This sentence does not seem connected to those around it, since it is placed during their adulthood. Presumably the point is that they continued the practice during adulthood.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. But the three sentences in that paragraph still don't really hang together, in my opinion.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarah allied herself more strongly with the electorally-stronger Whigs. I think this needs a little more. What does "electorally stronger" refer to? Neither the "more strongly" nor the "stronger" follow from anything noted as less strong, as far as I can see.
Addressed. I've removed "electorally stronger" as it isn't really necessary. I just put it in for adjective purposes, but I can now see that it doesn't work. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aware that Abigail was gaining more influence with Anne, Sarah disobeyed her, and instead physically forced her to St James's Palace. Who did she force, Abigail or Anne? Also "physically forced" is such a juicy teaser that I'm sure the reader would enjoy some detail here.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1704, Anne confided to Lord Godolphin that she did not think that she and Sarah could ever be true friends again. This is placed so that it seems to result from a sequence of governmental issues, including the Charles Spencer appointment; but 1704 is early in the reign, before some of these events took place. Might that point therefore go better at the beginning of the paragraph?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Sarah vehemently pressed for the appointment of Sunderland, from 1702 to 1706, until he was finally appointed in 1706. The point was made to emphasise how Sarah's political lectures made Anne feel uneasy. However, let me know what you would change it to, or feel free to change if you have something in mind. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it only passes because you don't date the rest of the paragraph. If you did, you'd have to make Anne's statement fit a particular event of that year rather than, as it seems to me, events that happened later as well.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the mourning period for Anne's husband, Sarah was the only one who refused to wear suitable mourning clothes. which perhaps implied that she did not believe that Anne's sadness over his death was genuine. I sense that an important detail or two is missing here, because to me that interpretation does not follow in itself.
Addressed. Changed to "gave the impression"; this is what was thought at the time, as it fell in line with numerous (anti-Whig propaganda) pamphlets about Anne's supposed love affair with Abigail. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't make a big deal of it. But I would have expected such propaganda pamphlets to be mentioned or quoted in this context. "Gave the impression" still makes it seem as if the article validates that view. Which strikes me as offbeat (if I went to a funeral, I would not assume that someone not wearing mourning clothes was making a statement about whether someone else's grief was genuine or not). I've always thought that Anne cared for her husband. Certainly they had been through a lot together, what with all those miscarriages and the death of their son.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but he could not change Sarah's mind. We have been told that Anne and Sarah had quarrelled, but not that Sarah had done anything to change her mind about. What had she said or decided?
Addressed. Replaced with "indiscretion"
  • Anne was threatened with an official parliamentary demand for her dismissal. Perhaps a detail is missing, because I couldn't tell from the article why parliament demanded Abigail Masham's dismissal. On what grounds?
Addressed. There were no grounds for dismissal, as such. The idea was used as a threat; a parliamentary demand would have been difficult to ignore. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the passion she showed for Abigail, and the stubborn refusal to dismiss her, angered Sarah to the point that she implied that a lesbian affair was taking place between the two women. Was there anything in this? I note that the word "passion" is used here. Do we read that word at face value or is it loaded?
This refers to the passion to keep Abigail in her service. I think it works and doesn't need to change; but if you disagree please feel free to comment/change. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's just that the other day I missed the subtextual meaning of the word "passion" in another article, where lesbianism was being suggested.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Marlboroughs also lost state funding for Blenheim Palace, and building ceased. We hear about the building later, so when did it start again?
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queen Anne's death allowed the Marlboroughs to return safely, and they landed back in England on the same afternoon. I think this needs to be made clearer. Since they were already about to land when she died, surely it was safe for them to return anyway (unless they hopped on a hovercraft when they heard the news! :)
Addressed. I've removed the section about returning safely, and left it as "that afternoon." It is not known for sure exactly why they returned. It's possible that they knew that Anne was seriously ill (it was a long illness); or Anne could have called them back herself (supported by her questions whether they'd landed back in England). It's best to leave it out because it's difficult to prove. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader probably needs a line to explain why George I was chosen as king.
Addressed–added bracketed info about his ancestry. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to James, because James was his great grandfather.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly heartbroken when her favourite daughter Anne Spencer died in 1716, she had her favourite cup, a lock of her hair, and adopted the Sunderlands' youngest child, Lady Diana, who would later become her favourite granddaughter. This wasn't entirely clear to me.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her wealth was so considerable that rumours circulated that Sarah’s granddaughter, Lady Diana Spencer, would marry Frederick, Prince of Wales, with a massive dowry from the dowager duchess of £100 000. I found this sentence vague. It does not make explicit the link between the two (was there any more to this rumour than the fact that she was wealthy?).
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Death and legacy" section seems to say little about the death and legacy. It might be better to add the death to the "Later years" section and change this final section's title to "Assessment", which would then match the contents.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth looking for a little more to add here.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good to have ISBNs for the books (many people, including me, search for the books with the ISBNs, which bring up the precise edition). This is not an FAC requirement, though.
  • On my screen, the wide picture of Blenheim screws up the list below it.

Anyway, that's my lot: a thoroughly absorbing article. I will keep an eye on any responses and comment accordingly.

qp10qp 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been addressed suitably, I believe. Let me know if you disagree. Many thanks, PeterSymonds 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very happy with the way the nominator has addressed my comments so speedily and professionally.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article, I enjoyed reading it. This recent expansion is a huge improvement. I fear I can add nothing to the previous reviewer's comments, all of which have been fixed already. My compliments to all involved. Coemgenus 19:24, 23 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sarah_Churchill,_Duchess_of_Marlborough&oldid=864129979"