Wikipedia:Peer review/George V of the United Kingdom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George V of the United Kingdom[edit]

His two sons, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and George VI of the United Kingdom were recently peer-reviewed. DrKiernan 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The King George's Fields in London were created as a lasting and fitting memorial by a committee in 1936 chaired by the then Lord Mayor of London."

The words "lasting and fitting" are POV. LuciferMorgan 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I missed those. Now removed. DrKiernan 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit[edit]

This is an excellent article overall (as usual). My list of suggestions (though long) focuses mostly on small issues of clarity.

  • was the first British monarch belonging to the House of Windsor, as a result of his creating it from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. - awkward - how about "was the first British monarch who belonged to the House of Windsor because he himself created it from..."
  • (from 1927, split into King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and King of Ireland) - do we need this information in the lead? is it essential to understanding George?
    • This is a politically sensitive issue, and an over-simplification of the Irish titles is likely to lead to offence. Perhaps an option would be:

George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert; 3 June 1865 - 20 January 1936) was the first British monarch belonging to the House of Windsor, which he created from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. As well as being King of the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Realms, George was also the Emperor of India and the first King of the Irish Free State. George reigned from 6 May 1910 through World War I (1914-1918) until his death in 1936.

  • As a youth and young man he served in the Royal Navy - unnecessary repetition? not really clear what the distinction is between "youth" and "young man" until much later
  • They toured the British Empire but George preferred to stay at home with his stamp collection, and lived what later biographers would consider a dull life because of its conventionality. - doesn't quite make the contrast clear - "Although they toured the British Empire initially, George preferred to stay at home..." OR "Although they occasionally toured the British Empire, George preferred to stay at home" (I don't know which one is more accurate)
    • Well, they toured until they were in their mid-forties, and then their children took over. I've chosen occasionally. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another significant event in his reign was the passing of the Statute of Westminster which separated the crown so that George ruled the dominions as separate kingdoms. - can you transition better than "another"? also, perhaps the more detailed information regarding the split should be moved here?
  • I have changed "Early life" to "Early life and education" since "Early life" had so few details before "education." Feel free to change it back.
  • The Prince of Wales appointed John Neale Dalton as their tutor, although neither excelled intellectually. - the "although" does not seem to follow logically - explain - was Dalton brilliant? his wikipedia page does not say much about him
    • Sentence expanded to make clear that Albert Victor and George did not excel intellectually as children, not the Prince of Wales or Dalton. It is unclear whether their lack of attainment was because of poor teaching or poor studentship. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why the two princes were given naval educations?
    • Their father wanted it (Queen Victoria didn't) because it was "the very best possible training". Traditionally, second sons go into the navy and it was thought unwise to separate the boys because Albert Victor was reliant on George to induce him to work. Their father also thought it would be better for them to mix with ordinary people. I'll add something brief in about this. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might briefly mention what the "Flying Dutchman" is.
  • There are a lot of links here. I don't think it is common practice to link individual years and do all of the geographical locations need to be linked as well?
    • Yes, you're quite right WP:MoS deprecates the linking of years like this, so I've removed most. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they returned to the UK, the brothers were parted with Albert Victor attending Trinity College, Cambridge and George continuing in the Royal Navy. - confusing - do you mean - "When they returned to the UK, the brothers were parted from Albert Victor who began attending Trinity College, Cambridge and George who continued in the Royal Navy"?
  • Why did "the mothers" oppose George marrying Marie?
    • Alexandra was anti-German, the Duchess of Edinburgh was pro-German. But I think basically they just didn't like one another. I'll add something about this after checking Pope-Hennessy. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might explain why being second in line to the throne "effectively ended George's naval career."
  • The marriage was a success, and unlike his father, George did not take a mistress. - the mistress information seems like an odd intrusion - why are we suddenly comparing George to his father?
    • OK, reference to non-existent mistress removed. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout their lives the couple exchanged notes of endearment and loving letters. - some editors at FAC may want a source for a statement like this
  • It was claimed that at the wedding, the crowd were confused as to who was the Duke of York (later George V) and who was the Tsarevitch (later Nicholas II) of Russia, because their beards and dress made them look alike superficially. - I'm only bringing this up because at FAC (where I am assuming you are headed), sentences such as this one are often criticized. We academics love the passive and it makes sense to us in many contexts. But I have been asked numerous times "who claimed" and that sort of thing. I just mention it. Defend your use of the passive!
    • I've removed "it was claimed" but inserted "may have been" just to irritate FAC by adding "may have been" and you by removing "it was claimed"! DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Frederick Abbott's Through India with the Prince (1906) describes the tour. - can you tell us a little more about why Abbott was chosen to describe the tour and what his book said? his wikipedia page is a stub
    • No idea. I'm not responsible for adding this, and I tried to remove it. I've moved it to a footnote in the hopes that it will wither and die. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May chose the regal name of Queen Mary - was she naming herself after Elizabeth's sister? if so, could you mention that fact - you say the name was "regal" - that is the reason I can think of
    • That's a typo - I think it should be "regnal". Officially, May was styled "Princess Victoria Mary", and signed herself "Victoria Mary". When she became Queen the use of a double name was deprecated and she chose "Mary". Do you think I should put this in? DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can do it in two sentences! Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the only relevant historical event during WWI really the whole title business? Wow. Maybe you could just mention in a few sentences what the war was about and who the British were fighting, just in case readers don't know and don't click on the relevant link (I am again thinking of those poorly educated American college students). Even if someone clicked, they would have to read a lot of the WWI page to understand. Just a little relevant historical background. Many Britons died, etc. But perhaps this is asking too much and the article already flows so well.
    • I'd rather try and focus on him rather than the war. There are other events which happened to him during this time, for example he fell off a horse and fractured his pelvis at a troop review (the cheering troops spooked the horse). But the section is already rather long. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had always had a weak chest - this sounds like a nineteenth-century novel! - can you be more specific?
  • A bout of illness saw him retire to the sea - "to [a place] near the sea" perhaps?
  • he would never leave the room alive - a bit dramatic for my taste
    • Well, to be quite honest, that's why I put it in! Maybe I will remove it, I'll see if anyone else complains. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the King's lying in state in Westminster Hall, his four surviving sons, King Edward VIII, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, mounted the guard at the catafalque on the night of 28 January, the day before the funeral as a mark of respect to their father. - awkward - how about "As a mark of respect for their father, the king's four sons [insert names] mounted the guard at the catafaulque on the night before the king's funeral at Westminster Hall" or something like that
    • I've tried to clean that up a bit. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the procession to George's Lying in State, as the cortege turned into New Palace Yard, the Maltese Cross fell from the Imperial Crown and landed in the gutter. The new King, Edward VIII, saw it fall and wondered whether this was a bad omen.[46][47] He would abdicate before the year was out. - this suggests it was - I would delete the last sentence to avoid that suggestion
  • The title list has odd formatting issues on my browser. Why is "and, occasionally, outside of the United Kingdom, and with regard to India" on its own line with no bullet - it looks weird
    • Yes, that needed re-formatting. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed John's cause of death from "epilepsy" to "seizures." I've never really heard of a person dying from epilepsy. It's the seizures that cause the death or the resulting injuries from the seizures that cause the death. I checked the John page, but his cause of death was not precisely listed. Seizures seemed the best way to go at this point. A somewhat flawed analogy: people do not die from AIDS, they die from other diseases that they get because of AIDS. Also, how sure are historians that John had epilepsy? Lots of diseases cause seizures but that does not mean that a person has epilepsy. It's a very tricky distinction to make.
    • Yes, you're right. Thanks. Most biographers do say seizures. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the "Tributes" section above the "Titles" and "Ancestry" sections.
  • Most of the article seems to be written in British English. Make sure it is consistent - I changed one "honor" to "honour."
  • Why are all of the images on the right side of the page? I would move a few over to the left side for variety.
    • I had to delete one (or was it more?) because of uncertain sources/copyright. I've moved one over to the left. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You describe the Punch cartoon as "depicting" the King as "relinquishing" his German titles. But cartoons usually have a political slant - could you make this cartoon's slant clearer to the reader? Is it supporting or deriding the King's move? Political cartoons from a previous era are often very difficult for later readers to understand (as you are well aware). The eighteenth-century political cartoons that I myself look at are well-nigh impossible for students to understand (they certainly don't find them funny). I would guess that this is slightly derisive. Am I right? Showing a king sweeping, showing his robes hiked up, the "made in Germany" stamp, etc.
    • No, I think Punch was patriotic during the war and was supportive of the move. The King is wearing the Garter robes, which, although seemingly comical, do actually look like that! DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there you go. A reason to explain. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the names of the "External links" can you tell us a little more about where we are going so that we know if we want to click? "George V at geocities" or something like that?
  • You probably want to add in the rest of the ISBNs on your "Reference" list, if they are available.
  • My only real substantive issue would be that the "Issue" table indicates he and his wife had several children but we never really read about them in the biography. There is really only the mention of their parenting style and his desire to see "Bertie and Lilibet" on the throne. Why is there not more on their children? At least noting the births of each one (and death of one)? Awadewit 09:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each child has their own article, and the issue are in the table and the infobox. I'd prefer to concentrate on the two most important relationships from a historical perspective: his relations with his two elder sons. DrKiernan 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But, he had a child that died, John, right? That seems worth a mention. Awadewit 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=192045562"