Wikipedia:Peer review/Princess Helena of the United Kingdom/archive1

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

Princess Helena of the United Kingdom[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it up to FA status, so any comments against the FA criteria will be useful. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey, I have responded to your request on my talk page. My points below are ordered in the same way as what they refer to is in the article.


  • The first two paragraphs should be combined I feel, they are too short when apart.
    • I see what you mean. I've combined 2 and 3 instead, as paragraph 1 is meant to be a short and snappy general info/notability paragraph. I've used the same in other royal articles I've written, but if you feel it should be changed I'll see what the British Royalty director says about it.
  • I feel the opening sentence should read "The Princess Helena (Helena Augusta Victoria: Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein by marriage..." and make sure the semi colon currently there is changed to a colon, which I assume is what is meant to be there?
    • Hmm, interesting. I've changed it.
  • Wikilink Germany in its first instance
    • Addressed.
  • "In her teenage years" - is there a way to be more specific?
    • Addressed.
  • Wikilink England and Scotland
    • Addressed.
  • "nature of the relationship is largely unknown" this ought to be cited
    • Addressed.
  • What is a helpmeet?
    • Unofficial secretary. I've changed it.
  • "Princess Helena began an early flirtation with her father's former librarian, Carl Ruland." (first line of marriage controversy") that sentence ends abruptly, may want to merge it with the second sentence and re-jiggle it.
    • Addressed.
  • Take a look at WP:DASH to make sure you are using all the dashes correctly
    • I'll work on these.
  • Re-paragraph "Engagement and wedding" I would, these two sentence paragraphs ought to be combined into others.
    • Addressed.
  • "Simple life" is a bit of a general, intangible title for a section?
    • Addressed.
  • "caused distress to the royal family." at the end of "simple life" are there any specifics?
    • Addressed. Unfortunately I don't have specifics; but I've quoted the royal circular. The circular doesn't go into detail.
  • "British Nurses' Association" in "Nursing" section, is there a wikilink for this?
    • No. I would start it but I haven't got time right now. Also I'm no expert on nursing so it might not be wise :)
  • "one contemporary newspaper" in the needle work section, you could name the paper as long as you kept "contemporary" in there.
    • Oops, book. I've added the author but I can't find anything about him. Chomet
  • Perhaps change "author" to "writing"? If you are an author, your interests are "writing" not "author" and the section title just feels like it should be the name of the interest not the role of the subject. Just a feeling, go with what you think is right but I wonder if you get the same feeling as I do.
    • Quite right. Addressed.
  • "Quiet life" has the same issues as a section heading as "simple life" does
  • On my screen, the location of the image of the grave at the end of "later years" interferes with the Saxe-Coburg template in the section below, leaving it an inch or so from the edge of the page. You just need to move the grave image up and perhaps make it larger.
    • How odd. I've moved the photo up, but I've not specified a size as its supposed to resize itself in other browsers.
  • In the arms section, perhaps more on what the symbols mean?
    • I have no idea! I'll contact Ipankonin (talk · contribs) who specialises in that sort of thing (and put all the arms on the pages)

General points

  • The lead a good five or so more citations I feel, and the overall article could do with ten or so. If you feel personally that you have over-cited your article, that's probably a good indicator that you have cited just right.
    • Five refs in the lead? I don't see how its necessary because everything's referenced further on. Let me know what you think should be referenced in the main article.
  • Read WP:CAPTION ideally the information in the caption should lend more understanding than a mere 5 word summary of the image.
    • I'll work on these.
  • The references section, you may wish to organise it into website and written sources, as per (and I pick ones I have written only because I know it exhibits this organisation) Operation Camargue or Mozambican War of Independence
    • Added an external links section.

That's all I can find at the moment, it is an excellent article, you cover everything I can think of and write well, lots of images. Don't feel that it's a problematic article just because I haven't mentioned what's good about it. Everything above is minor. Hope this helps, SGGH speak! 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already corrected the few minor things that I found issue with. You shouldn't have any major problems at FAC (assuming no major part of her life was omitted). Great article. --mav (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)