Talk:Marie Antoinette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Marie Antoinette is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 13, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Peer review, transcluded[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marie Antoinette[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is a high quality article which could become an FA. Several editors have collaborated on improvements, and now an outside reviewer is needed to point out what parts still need improvement.

Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Magicpiano[edit]

Mostly a good read, I have a few comments and issues.

  • I have a sense (without checking) from the writing that some of the article's language is remnant from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 (which it probably started out from). If this is the case (i.e. the article has not been completely rewritten) it should be acknowledged.
  • Why is a website named "chevroncars.com" used as a source? (I don't expect you to answer why such a site has a bio of Marie on it...)
  • The reliability of that and other web-based sources may be questioned at GAN/FAC.
  • Article is heavily dependent on a single source. Is there really only one detailed bio of her?
  • Article is incompletely cited.
  • Her godparents should be identified by name.
  • "After all" is unnecessary.
  • "were treated to gardens and menageries" - clarify: does this mean they were given them as gifts, or that they were allowed to play in them, or what?
  • "allowing relaxations in the type of people who could come to court" - rephrase
  • "Court" does not normally need to be capitalized

More to come. Magic♪piano 16:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Echoing Brianboulton's comments, images are biased toward portraits of Marie; portraits of von Fersen and some of her confidants would not be out of place here.
  • In some places images are placed directly opposite each other, bunching the text between. Images should be staggered, roughly alternating sides of the text.
  • "she concentrated mainly on horticulture, redesigning in the English mode the garden" - awkward
  • quote cited "(Weber 132)" needs to be properly integrated
  • "More importantly was" --> "More important was"
  • "Though many believed it was entirely the support of the queen that enabled them to secure their positions, in truth it was mostly that of Finance Minister Jacques Necker." - "in truth" is unnecessary. This sentence also needs clarification -- are the many believers contemporaries or historians? Whichever, some names would help.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE#Italics_and_quotations, quotations should not be italicized unless they are in the source
  • In 1786-1789 (and possibly elsewhere) there are long multi-clause sentences. These should be broken into shorter sentences.
  • "This lack of solutions was unfairly blamed on the queen." This sentence, already tagged for citation, also demands clarification - who blamed the queen?
  • "In reality, the blame should have been placed on a combination of several other factors" and following. -- This is post-hoc historical analysis, and should be openly attributed to the historian doing it.
  • "Around the same time, Jeanne de Lamotte-Valois escaped from prison in France and fled to London, where she published more damaging lies concerning her supposed "affair" with the queen." -- this requires more context (who is this person, when was the supposed affair, how/why imprisoned, etc)
  • "The queen, however, was present with her daughter, Marie-Therese, when Tippu Sahib of Mysore visited Versailles seeking help against the British." -- Tipu Sultan never came to France; this is presumably a reference to an embassy he sent.

-- Magic♪piano 14:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Just a couple of issues - I have not read the article through:-

  • There are around 16 portraits or other images of Marie Antoinette in the article. This seems like way, way too many. You would be better advised to make a selection from these and reduce the number of redundant images.
  • I noticed a couple of problems in the lead:
    • "In April 1770, on the day of her marriage to Louis-Auguste, Dauphin of France, she subsequently became Dauphine of France." Remove the word "subsequently".
    • The last paragraph is very weakly written and reads badly. I have attempted to rephrase it thus:-

"After her death Marie Antoinette became part of popular culture. A major historical figure, she has been the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Some academics and scholars have deemed her essentially frivolous and superficial, and that her attitudes were contributory to the French Revolution. Others have claimed that she has been treated unjustly by history, and have sought to portray her in a more sympathetic light."

Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lecen[edit]

Hi, Will Beback. I never worked on a peer review but I'll give it a try! I would like to recommend you Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. It's a FA I wrote sometime ago about an Italian born Brazilian Empress. It will be useful to you. Trust me. Some points I'd like to raise:

  1. The lead should have at most four paragraphs. Not five as it is now. Each paragraph should be a little larger than it is now. There shouldn't be any reference on the lead, since we presume the information will be later found in the main text.
  2. I really don't like this article's organization. You should drop the years on the section titles. You should also try to create more sections and less subsections, just like in Teresa Cristina's.
  3. Each section should not be larger than the photo that is used to illustrate it. Is it a rule? No. I learned one thing about readers: they get tired if they see one huge section. Try to either make them shorter or divide them in subsections. Again, see Teresa Cristina's.
  4. Pictures must have a meaning and they need to be well-organized. Try to follow a standard of one picture per section and one picture to the left, other to the right, then another one to the left, etc... See Teresa Cristina's and you'll get the idea. Why you should do this? Well, the article will look prettier and readers like pretty things. Also, try to follow a timeline with the pictures, ranging them from her childhood until her last pictures. I really hate when I see an article with the character at age 60 in the beginning and later at age 25 in the middle. It's confusing. Don't commit this mistake.
  5. The legacy section looks odd. It's small and when I read I can't stop thinking that a bunch of different people wrote different things there. I want to read a section and have the impression that it's going from point A to point B.
  6. The titles section should have sources. I don't see a good reason to add "Madame Capet" and "La Veuve ("the widow") Capet". These weren't titles, but just a way people called her.
  7. Try to add a posterity section too. I don't like to have to search across the text to see who were her children. I want something easy (and yes, I'm playing a part here, of the "spoiled and dick reader"). Perhaps a "Genealogy" section and two subsections (ancestry and posterity). See Teresa Cristina's. You'll find there a good model.
  8. You should differentiate notes from footnotes. If you can, don't use internet sources, not even from well known newspapers. Use books. I want to have the feeling that you actually made a research and not merely looked on google. You also need more sources. You need far more sources. The article is entirely build upon Fraser's Marie Antoinette. Try to use at least three different biographies to fill the entire article. Use at least other five books to fill gaps (like legacy section, or minor information that for some reason couldn't be found in the biographies).
  9. Remove the further reading section. Who cares? And still, the reader will wonder why you bothered to suggest other books when you used only one book to write the entire article.
  10. Remove all external links with the sole exception of the commons' link. Keep it. People like photos. Imagine your readers as children. That's what they are.
  11. There is a note on the succession box? Why? Remove it.

That's it. Sorry if I was rude, I was playing the part of some of the reviewers on the FAC. You'll hate them, hate the FAC process and wonder your self why you bother to write articles if have to endure some dick and arrogant editors on the FAC. Here is why: share knowledge. Share it. How many good articles about this queen you can find in the internet? I mean, really good articles? None. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks to each of the reviewers: Magicpiano, Brianboulton, and Lecen. These are all specific, actionable items. This article is a true collaboration (meaning I'm not responsible for any of its good content.) It has some good editors working on it and these suggestions will give everyone a "to-do" list. I'll transclude this page. I think we all agree that Marie Antoinette is an important topic and the article is worth burnishing. Thanks again for your time and attention.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please consider these changes[edit]

In the section about the diamond necklace scandal, there is a sentence which begins with this: "Marie Antoinette, who had insisted on the arrest of the Cardinal was dealt a heavy personal blow," SUGGESTED EDIT: add comma just after "Cardinal"

Earlier in that same paragraph, I find this in parentheses: "except de La Motte and Réaux de Villette who managed to flee" SUGGESTED EDIT: assuming both of those people fled, insert comma just after "Villette", and consider inserting "both" just after "who"

In the preceding paragraph, I find "The main actors of the scandal" and "Others involved". I suggest you review those sentences with the view of changing some commas to semicolons. There may be some cases in the listings where the existing ", ___ ," construct is a description rather than a distinct person, and you should be using a semicolon instead of a comma at the end of such construct when that happens.

In the section about the French Revolution before Varennes, there is a phrase "remained by the king whose power was gradually being taken away". SUGGESTED EDIT: add comma after "king".

I find "After the death of her brother Joseph in 1790, his successor, Leopold". SUGGESTED EDIT: Insert comma after "Leopold". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Lady Sophie Farrell[edit]

In the section titled "The French Revolution before Varennes," the final paragraph before Mirabeau mentions "Le Godmiché Royal" (which I found a copy of here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56707s/f1.image that could be cited, or at least listed) and states that a person called "Lady Sophie Farrell" was alleged to be the queen's lover in this publication. However, I am unable to find any further information on this "Lady Sophie Farrell." Even "Le Godmiché Royal" doesn't seem to mention her by name (though I am rusty on my eighteenth century French). This section needs a citation.

Additionally, the final sentence in the second paragraph under "Trial and execution" contradicts itself by saying that the reaction of the mothers in the room comforted Marie Antoinette since they were not sympathetic to her. It seems like it should be that they were NOT comforting because they lacked sympathy, or they were comforting and sympathetic, both. I don't know which it is in this case.66.86.231.254 (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)