Talk:Royal touch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Illustrations[edit]

As an historian, I don't like mixing historic depictions of events with images created much later, purely from the imagination. Given that there are several really excellent old images available, it is inappropriate to use a close crop on an early 20th-century illustration as the introductory picture. Particularly not with a statement that it is copied from an original source, when the source can't be located.

I would scrap the 19th century painting of Charles I, and enlarge the print of Charles II. Likewise remove the others that are not contemporary with the monarch that they represent, except in the case of the illumination, where the discrepancy in dates needs to be clear. Amandajm (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead image, as the caption used to say, is a replica of a 16th century illustration. The illustration is featured in Queen Mary's manual for blessing cramp-rings and touching for the Evil. According to Roy Strong, the author of the manuscript (and thus of the illustration) is Levina Teerlinc (d. 1576). I couldn't find a good quality image of the illumination so I uploaded an image of the replica instead. I don't see why that's inappropriate.
I wouldn't argue against removing the image of Charles I, but I believe the painting of Francis I should be retained. That piece of art is quite notable in its own right, being one of the best known works of Cignani and is frequently mentioned when discussing Palazzo d'Accursio. Besides, it's "only" a century off :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Please be much more accurate in the information that you provide about artworks. On Wikimedia Commons you had stated that the copy was by author "unknown" which was simply not true as the artist's name was given at the site where you found the picture. You had not given the correct date, but had given the dates of Mary I which implied that it had been done in her lifetime. The problem is now fixed, with the author creditted, and the original work and its author acknowledged.
Please don't crop Levina Teerlinc's original, as it spoils the composition of her picture.
The work by Cignani is about 150 years out of date, not 100, as the event took place in 1515 and Cignani wasn't born until 113 years later, and then had to grow up a bit, before he painted the picture. You have the dates of the king (which are unnecessary) and the dates of the event. What you need to do is date the artwork, "as depicted by Cignani in the mid 17th-century" or else delete it.
Amandajm (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please try not to come off as patronizing or condescending. If you believe there is something to be fixed, fix it. If I have a good reason to disagree, I'll revert, and then we'll discuss it. We are all volunteers here, and, with all due respect, I certainly don't need random users to come and lecture me. For example, I might ask you not to introduce misspellings and factual inaccuracies into the article, but it's easier and more respectful to simply fix the problem. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Jacobite Cessation[edit]

". George I (r. 1714–1727) permanently discontinued the practice, but the exiled James II's Jacobite heirs claimed the ability until the 1780s.[2]" I distinctly recall reading that during the Revolutionary Wars Henry IX was forced to use cheaper metals in his touch coins indicating that he continued to touch for Scrofula. Anyone have access to the cited book?

GA Review[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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal touch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Review
  • I think if you're going to link queens regnant of England, then you should also link the kings of England and the kings of France.
    • The link leads not to an article about queens regnant of England, but to an article explaining what queen regnant means. I can remove the link if you think it would be better without it. I could also reword it to say "monarchs of England and France", though that is very similar to the lead sentence.
      • No I think it's good, but I thought perhaps for the kings that you could link to a list of kings.  — Calvin999 20:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In England, Saint Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066) was said to be the first monarch to possess the healing power of the royal touch. → Something like this needs to have a citation at the end of the sentence to support it.
  • notably including → most notably
  • The diseased was → Shouldn't this be were? As it wasn't just one person who received the medal to wear.
    • Possibly. It seems all the same to me, but I am not the native speaker here :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The placement of the blue background quote box is odd, because it's creating an unnecessary white space to the right of it, underneath the images of the coins.
    • I don't see the white space and, in any case, I wouldn't know what to do with the quote box. I can't move it to the left because of the list and I can't move it elsewhere because it is relevant to the section (and the list). What do you suggest? Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Maybe because I have a bigger screen, but the box was interfering with the layout. I've moved it now. ` — Calvin999
  • The Henrician practice → Can Henrician be linked?
    • To what do you think I should link it? It refers to Henry VIII, linked in the preceding paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I know, but some people may not have got that. I've personally never heard of it before.  — Calvin999 20:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Outcome

COmpact, but really interesting article. Hardly any issues to comment on really. On hold for 7 days.  — Calvin999 17:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am honored to have such a veteran review it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's kind.  — Calvin999 20:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Pass or Fail:

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.