Wikipedia:Peer review/Anne of Denmark/archive1

Anne of Denmark[edit]

I had often passed back and forwards through the Jacobean period, both from a historical and a literary point of view, without really noticing James I's consort, Anne of Denmark, whom I vaguely regarded as a nothing queen compared to the largely vivid queens and consorts of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, a sort of mouse behind the throne. But, as I worked on one or two Jacobean topics recently, she slowly but surely came into focus at last.

And then I was brought up short by a passage in Alan Stewart's biography of James where he suggests that James stood aloof from many of the phenomena we now see as peculiarly Jacobean and that Anne was actually the central figure of the court culture. Considering that the Jacobean age—particularly the first decade, when Anne was still in good health and highly active—provided one of the great literary flowerings in British history, with Shakespeare, Middleton, Jonson, and Donne at the height of their powers, this placed Anne in a new light for me. Editing the article about her, I discovered also that she was more independent and politically active than I had imagined. The more I read about her and the more editing I indulged in, the more I started wondering if this could become a featured article. So I'd be very interested to read and address any comments before I brave those gnashing Symplegades. Any criticism gratefully digested. qp10qp 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

Here are my comments for improvement. Feel free to paste them into peer review when you do that.

Can you spice up the first paragraph of the lead? It just has names and dates right now. You need to draw the reader in just a tad more, I think.

I've cut a dull chunk and amalgamated it with the second paragraph, which introduces some aspects of her character.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, recent reappraisals acknowledge Anne's assertive independence and, in particular, her dynamic significance as a patron of the arts during the famous Jacobean age. - Are these reappraisals based on an underlying methodology like feminism?

McManus's book is very feminist, I think. But Pauline Croft, though a woman, crafts her comments in ways that disguise any overt feminism, it seems to me, though she endorses the reappraisal. Barroll contributes a major and original reappraisal of Anne without sounding particularly feminist: but he has worked with Cerasano, who is very feminist. I'm not sure. I think feminists like McManus have followed historians' reappraisals of early Stuart monarchy—a general trend over the last twenty years but not a feminist thing itself—by focussing on Anne, and then their works have in turn informed mainstream biographers like Alan Stewart. It's difficult tracing the origins of the reappraisal: Ethel Williams in 1970, not noticeably a feminist though identifying, I think, with Anne as a woman, said a number of little things which I suspect may have set off a few bells among feminists later on, for example that Anne's support of Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones had never been fully appreciated (a very significant thing to say when you consider that they are two of Britain's greats, and very dependent on patronage). I also get the impression that feminist studies of the Jacobean age are often more cultural and literary than purely historical: the historians, even the women, seem more cautious in their language than the literary and cultural analysts—I suppose because they are interpreting a limited number of known facts rather than a vast sea of literature and art which can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

Basically I was wondering if there was a reason for the reappraisal that you could put into the sentence. Revisionist history often happens for a reason. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below about historical views.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne's birth at Skanderborg Castle in Skanderborg, in Jutland, in the Kingdom of Denmark - too many "in's"?

Carch, are you listening? Ten flagellations, now.

Oh dear. I'd better bring cat o' nine tails up to Good Article standard, or something. Carcharoth 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely sorted by Carcharoth.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Güstrow provided Anne with a frugal and stable environment during her early childhood - "frugal environment" seems like an odd description.

I think I got the idea from Williams's: "Life at Güstrow was frugal, orderly and virtuous; very different from the hectic conditions prevailing at the Danish court." One ties oneself in knots trying to use different words, and Williams is the only real source of information about Anne's childhood that I've come across. I'll try to find a different word than "environment".

Better wording now in place, I think.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne was under pressure to fulfill her perceived chief purpose and provide James and Scotland with an heir - why "perceived"?

I thought it might sound a bit horrid not to add that. One of the historians just calls it her purpose. I think I can leave out the whole central phrase without loss, though.

I think it is more historically accurate to say it was her purpose, though. History isn't always pretty. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed all mention of purpose and I think the sentence is better for it.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne's opportunity came when James left for London in 1603 to assume the English throne, taking the earl of Mar with him. - her "opportunity" to do what?; also might be unclear to some readers why he was assuming the English throne now

I can just say "opportunity" to take custody of Henry.

Sorted by Carcharoth.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Custody" section, I was slightly confused - did she miscarry twice? Also, you might indicate that it was thought that she miscarried because of the stress over the Henry custody battle. I'm sure we don't really know why. Figuring out the real medical causes of events in the past is nearly impossible.

She did miscarry twice. I thought it was clear they were different: one was in 1595 and one in 1603—the dates are there...I'll try to make it clearer, by perhaps saying "miscarried again". In fact she miscarried at least one more time, but I'm not sure when that was. I did try to distance those foreign interpretations. I can say "it was thought", or whatever.

I've adjusted here and there to make this clearer and brought Calderwood's contemporary quote from the notes into the text.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In "Reaction to favorites" there is a referencing mishap.

Fixed. qp10qp 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you can expand a bit in the "Patron of the arts" section; I was disappointed by its brevity, especially since the lead said that she led a sparkling salon.

I wanted to keep the overall length down. But actually I think this is her most important sphere. Oddly, though, precise information about the painters is lacking, while there is a major ton about the masques.

I would add information on the masques, then. I know that size is an issue, but right now you talk about her mostly in relation to other figures. It would be nice to bolster the article with something she did on her own. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still to do: I've decided to add a paragraph on masquing, but I'll have to do some re-reading first.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought some info up from the notes into the article and added the bit where Carleton says the Spanish ambassador risked getting paint on his lips when he kissed Anne's hand after The Masque of Blackness. qp10qp 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiniest thing - some of your ISBNs have hyphens and some do not.

I just copy them out of the books. Some have hyphens, some gaps, and some are solid. What do you think is the best way to do them: all solid?

I do solid. Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done solid.qp10qp 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead you suggest that there are competing interpretations of her reign among historians - I would have liked to see a section or a few paragraphs comparing those interpretations somewhere. Awadewit ^Talk 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the notes are full of conflicting interpretations, but, as you know, I don't really like intruding the historians into the main text unless absolutely necessary. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.

Well, then don't tempt us in the lead! :) Awadewit ^Talk 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subsection on this with a paragraph dealing with historians' opinions. Obviously, I'm only sampling five historians there, but Croft does summarise this whole reappraisal, and so I've cited her to cover that.

Many thanks for your help! qp10qp 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

Yomangani[edit]

Can't see much wrong with it. Engaging, comprehensive etc. etc.
Quibbles: Some of the intrigues and events could do with a little expansion in the body of the article: personally I find it annoying to have to flick back and forth between the article and footnotes to understand what is going on. For the general reader some background might be helpful in places (e.g. ...though Lutheran rather than Calvinist - most people who can work out the significance of that don't need it mentioned and those can't need more explanation). What's with the occasional lowercasing of earl and duke in titles? There is also intermittent linking of dates. It seemed to end rather abruptly, but maybe I'm just used to these articles tailing off through "Styles and arms". Yomangani ^talk 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. I've yet to do a full pre-FAC copy-edit, and when I do I will try to clarify a few things in the main text. I must read it through without referring to the notes to see if the main text stands up on its own, because that's all most people will read. My noting system is idiosyncratic and still not fully realised: I am trying to develop a system whereby the citing of the article is easier for readers to check (at least to the degree that they may see what the article text is based on at key points); also, since Wikipedia is a collection of information, it seems a waste for editors to look up interesting details or points and then cover them only with "Jones, p. 7", because then the information returns to the abyss; finally, I think I might better help the school and college students who want to use the articles by providing them with a collection of interesting quotes on a subject. The trouble is that this is, so far, a very cumbersome apparatus for a mere encyclopedia article, though I am trusting that one day notes will be fully hideable and perhaps available on clicking in a side bar or superimposed box. The toughest call is judging what to put in the article and what to note; sometimes I can't see the wood for the trees and deceive myself that something is covered in the article when it is only covered in the notes.)

On "Lutheran rather than Calvinist", yes, I think that can go. You're right: if the article is going to include that, it should explain it, which really would take too long.

The lowercasing of earl and duke is the result of a decision I've made to follow American rather than English usage style (CMS), though I occasionally trip up because it really is a tricky area. The style I've used looks odd to a British eye, but I've only really intended to use the capitals when the name and title is given as a block: so it would be: Duke Henry of Brunswick, but Henry, duke of Brunswick—because the second shows only that he is one of the generic dukes of Brunswick. However, I've been inconsistent in places, as you've probably noticed, and so I will check through very carefully.

Linking of dates is a mystery to me. Once I learned to link them properly, I found people going through unlinking them, referring to other guidelines, so I tend not to give a fig about all that these days. Usually someone comes along who is only too happy to set them in order.

On the abrupt ending: well, she died. When a reigning monarch dies there are usually a whole set of consequences to lay out, as it were, but there don't seem to have been many consequences following Anne's death, poor thing. I didn't put an "assessment" or "legacy" section in because I was trying to fold elements of those into the main text. qp10qp 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you basing it on Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles (and I'm not sure you are) then the Duke of Buckingham merits a capital, whereas "George Villiers, a duke of Buckingham" wouldn't, But then again maybe the convention you are using is just ugly ;). Yomangani ^talk 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit ugly; but it saves decisions further down the line and having to end up placing capitals here, there and everywhere. For example, if you say the "Duke of Buckingham", then you have to say the "Duke", the "Earl", etc. and, logically, "George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham". The CMS gives a string of examples, including:

the president of the United States; the president; President George Washington; President Washington; George Washington, president of the United States.

and:

the archbishop of Canterbury; Frederick Temple, archbishop of Canterbury; the pope; Pope John Paul II; the earl; the earl of Shaftsbury; Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury.

On the other hand it does admittedly say: Prince Philip, duke of Edinburgh (often capitalised in this honorary title)—so that may apply to the duke of Buckingham, who was not a hereditary duke, though I'd rather try to keep the whole system consistent.

This is all on pages 240 to 243 of my CMS, which says: "Civil, military, religious, and professional titles and titles of nobility are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name, as part of the name...;When such titles are used in apposition to a name, they are not part of the name and so are lowercased."

This may not exactly be Wikipedia MoS, but it does say somewhere in the MoS that CMS style is also acceptable. However, I do have some inconsistencies in the article (Earl Marischal) and must smooth them out. qp10qp 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just hope it doesn't catch on. I think I may have capitalized one when I was looking through, before I realized you were doing it intentionally. I'll go and look. Yomangani ^talk 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right about the dates, of course. I've now grasped the nettle and linked them properly (I think). qp10qp 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a careful copy edit and tried to clarify some of the intrigues as you suggest, trimming bits of rind off the carrot, so to speak. I'm no longer the best person to tell whether the information reads clearly, because I've gone over it so often that I'm starting to hallucinate. Might as well stick it up for FAC forthwith, since I can't think what else to do (famous last words). qp10qp 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]