702:. I find the claims of lack of comprehensiveness and verifiability to be without merit. In a summary style article like this one it is necessary to restrict the article to an overview, using one or two illustrative examples. On the sample issue for comprehensiveness, Andrew's lawsuit is mentioned and the details can be found elsewhere. One editor above wants it removed, others want to expand it. Consensus is to include a brief mention. Adding further detail would unbalance the article since it would be necessary to include the wide-ranging estimates of the alleged loan given by the Queen, which vary by at least 9 million pounds, and the dispute over whether the supposed loan was for the Swiss chalet or the lawsuit. And by the way, Andrew doesn't deny meeting Giuffre; he said he didn't recall meeting her, which is hardly surprising given that she was a nobody and he was meeting thousands of people a year. On the sample issue for verifiability, that the Queen was widely popular in the UK is almost self-evident and any statement to the contrary would be pandering to a minority fringe view. On the sample issue for neutrality, the statement is neither dishonest nor bias; it is strictly accurate and factual.
144:
couple shielded their grandsons from the intense press interest by keeping them at
Balmoral where they could grieve in private, but the royal family's silence and seclusion, and the failure to fly a flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace, caused public dismay. Pressured by the hostile reaction, Elizabeth agreed to return to London and address the nation in a live television broadcast on 5 September, the day before Diana's funeral. In the broadcast, she expressed admiration for Diana and her feelings "as a grandmother" for the two princes. As a result, much of the public hostility evaporated.
493:
article is just fine as it is. If we begin by addressing some of the sample issues, that will give us an idea of how we can best progress. What do you think about the wording "Throughout her lifetime, support for the monarchy in the United
Kingdom remained consistently high..."? Is the factoid about her visit to a Manchester wedding party germane on a top-level article about a major historical figure on whom many books have been written, more so than her paying Andrew's settlement? I think there are some problems of balance and bloat in this article.
608:
might have assisted her son, though we need to look more into it as details about the the provenance of the money paid by Andrew were never publicly revealed, and I think it's already mentioned in either Andrew's article or in the article on the lawsuit that the money could have come from the sale of his Swiss chalet. We need to avoid adding speculative info to a featured article, and even though the subject is dead, her relatives are alive and
185:. I think this article still had plently of room to be worked out in its talk page, as editors there did discuss with John in a thread more than 3,000 words long. There was a suggestion to wait out the page rush due to the death of the Queen (its viewership spiked from an average of 60,000 views a day to more than EIGHT MILLION —wow!).
522:
I think the information about popularity has a separate encyclopedic value than possible future events (which are not
Knowledge's role to predict). US Congress is not very popular, polling at something like 20% approval—which is encyclopedic information, regardless of the likelihood of its abolition.
473:
has kindly listed some 'sample' issues. Are we going to get a comprehensive list of all issues, or do we have to figure them out as we go along with the review? Because when featured article candidates are nominated, a detailed list of all issues is usually provided. I was wondering if the process is
134:
Neutrality: "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics" while this statement as written is true, as countries formerly part of the Empire became independent members of the
Commonwealth, then often became republics, I think the choice
492:
but not actioned, so they have been there a long time. That they have been there such a long time suggests there is a community of regular editors who think the article is just fine, and who have not commented in article talk in the three weeks they have been there, presumably because they think the
158:
Over-comprehensiveness: *"While touring
Manchester as part of her Jubilee celebrations, Elizabeth made a surprise appearance at a wedding party at Manchester Town Hall, which then made international headlines." Given what she did for a living, almost everything she did would generate headlines. What
143:
In August 1997, a year after the divorce, Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris. Elizabeth was on holiday with her extended family at
Balmoral. Diana's two sons, Princes William and Harry, wanted to attend church, so Elizabeth and Philip took them that morning. Afterwards, for five days the royal
188:
Around 5 October the views came back to normal. After that, on 9 October, John asked if there was progress in the issues John listed. I think it would have been good if there was an attempt to continue working on the issues. Piecemeal in their separate subsections for order and legibility's sake.
607:
Diana's death was a low point, if not the lowest point of her reign. So I would keep that part. I think the bit about Andrew needs to remain as well. There was a discussion about it and the community was in favor of keeping it. As User:John suggested, we could also mention that
Elizabeth herself
659:. That is hardly the same as "abolishing" of course. Yet I believe that it warrants mention somewhere in the article. A single sentence about Elizabeth's popularity and a (well-sourced) statement about possible change/reduction in the role of the monarchy in the future perhaps?--
592:
I would support removing the mention of the Queen's
Manchester tour and maybe Prince Andrew's lawsuit. Regarding the paragraph about Diana's death, I think we need to decide carefully about removal, as I think that was an important time in Elizabeth's public life.
135:
of "vary" is somewhat deceptive as it implies that the number of her subjects went anything but down. If I am wrong and the number of subjects went up, that would also be interesting. This just seems very weaselly and dishonest as it stands.
192:
But I will point out that I support delisting the page from FA, because it doesn't comply with item 1.e. of the
Featured ARticle criteria, stability. Just in 3 days it has had over 100 edits. That's hardly stable in my opinion.
507:
IMHO, the bit about her personal popularity or more importantly the monarchy's popularity, is an irrelevant addition in the page. The
British monarchy (AFAIK) is in no danger of being abolished, any time soon.
98:
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are serious problems with comprehensiveness and misuse of sources and there seems to be no appetite among regular editors to fix them.
489:
566:
response: The members of the US Congress are determined by voting every 2 or 6 years, but the institution is more enduring than that. (It isn't as long-lived as the British monarchy, but it
562:, in that I would rather see information on Elizabeth's personal popularity than the monarchy as an institution, given the context of the article, i.e. an individual's biography. Regarding
273:
637:
is quite a good source. I was not suggesting removing it but expanding it. It's a remarkable piece of history, and by omitting to mention it, the article is not comprehensive.
120:
Comprehensiveness: We skate across the awkwardness of her second son paying out a millions-of-pounds settlement to a woman he claims he never met; yet we omit to mention that
570:
existed for over 200 years.) Its popularity at any given point in time isn't determined by one or even a dozen of its members; thus, I believe that buidhe's point is valid.--
127:
Factual accuracy: "Throughout her lifetime, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom remained consistently high, as did her personal popularity." sourced in part to
131:, which has the title "Poll: Dramatic decline in support for monarchy in decade since Diamond Jubilee". This gives the appearance of dishonesty or at least bias.
680:
652:
277:
237:
261:
128:
241:
265:
40:
598:
253:
249:
245:
86:
269:
763:
257:
30:
17:
634:
121:
774:
594:
281:
167:, where there has been a bit of agreement about the problems but no great willingness to address them, hence this process.)
528:
793:
752:
733:
711:
692:
668:
646:
620:
602:
579:
553:
539:
517:
502:
482:
462:
448:
424:
409:
374:
355:
341:
319:
305:
206:
176:
107:
651:
Concerns about the longevity of the British monarchy are valid. About a week ago, Queen Margarethe of Denmark made
488:
Let's take it as we go. I've given you some pointers towards my thinking, and some of these were picked up at the
523:
However, I would rather see information on Elizabeth's personal popularity than the monarchy as an institution. (
741:
per Sandy, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere and I'm not seeing a consensus that these are major issues.
148:
729:
437:- are you referring to the /archive1 in the title? If so, that's part of the standard FAR naming format.
405:
370:
337:
301:
225:
221:
233:
82:
789:
664:
575:
203:
656:
155:
of good sources, if there was a willingness to rewrite this as a normal neutral Knowledge article.
747:
443:
229:
189:
Then, start the countdown of three weeks to bring it to FAR from there if things didn't work out.
720:
549:
513:
458:
420:
396:
361:
328:
292:
217:
164:
291:
I've put above a list of notifications needed; are you working on those or do you need help?
524:
61:
785:
707:
213:
53:
655:. This received quite a lot of press attention. There has been speculation about whether
688:
660:
642:
571:
498:
351:
315:
195:
172:
103:
742:
614:
609:
476:
438:
563:
545:
544:
Nobody votes every two or six years on who the British monarch should be, however.
509:
454:
432:
416:
72:
327:
you may have missed the list of editors I added to the front of the list above ?
781:
559:
533:
57:
703:
770:, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the
684:
638:
494:
470:
347:
324:
311:
288:
168:
151:
an interesting source which could be used to improve this. Indeed, there is
99:
152:
140:
Neutrality, again: This is how the article covers the death of Diana:
39:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
657:
King Charles will similarly reduce the number of British royals
392:
90:
65:
683:? Should the article mention it? Why, or why not?
801:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
122:she paid at least some of the settlement for him?
141:
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
807:No further edits should be made to this page.
780:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
653:controversial cuts to the number of royals
147:"Dismay"? Is that the best word to use?
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article review
7:
24:
165:Talk:Elizabeth II#Article quality
18:Knowledge:Featured article review
346:You're right, I did. Done now.
719:, nothing new for two months,
64:) 5:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
1:
734:17:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
474:a little bit different here.
794:05:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
712:15:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
693:21:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
669:13:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
647:15:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
621:00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
603:23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
580:09:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
554:06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
540:17:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
518:22:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
503:22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
483:21:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
463:23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
449:23:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
425:22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
410:14:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
375:15:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
356:15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
342:15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
320:15:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
306:15:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
207:22:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
177:15:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
108:06:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
753:15:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
824:
612:could apply in some form.
415:Why is this FAR archived?
212:Notifications to be done:
163:(more detailed version at
159:was so special about this?
613:
475:
804:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
775:featured article review
31:featured article review
146:
679:What do we think of
89:, talk page notice
717:Close without FARC
700:Close without FARC
278:WP Women's History
764:removal candidate
310:Done. Thank you.
274:WP Politics of UK
94:
815:
806:
779:
773:
726:
619:
617:
536:
481:
479:
436:
402:
367:
334:
298:
202:
200:
79:
48:The article was
38:
823:
822:
818:
817:
816:
814:
813:
812:
811:
802:
777:
771:
751:
724:
635:Daily Telegraph
615:
534:
477:
447:
430:
400:
365:
332:
296:
242:WP Commonwealth
196:
194:
112:I'll post some
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
821:
819:
810:
809:
797:
796:
784:goes through.
756:
755:
745:
739:Close w/o FARC
736:
714:
696:
695:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
649:
626:
625:
624:
623:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
468:
467:
466:
465:
441:
413:
412:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
266:WP New Zealand
210:
209:
190:
186:
161:
160:
156:
137:
136:
132:
125:
116:issues below.
96:
95:
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
820:
808:
805:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
776:
769:
765:
761:
758:
757:
754:
750:
749:
744:
740:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
718:
715:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
677:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
622:
618:
611:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
591:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:I agree with
557:
556:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
538:
537:
530:
526:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
480:
472:
464:
460:
456:
453:Oh, I see :)
452:
451:
450:
446:
445:
440:
434:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
411:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
388:
387:
376:
372:
368:
364:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
326:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
287:
286:
285:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
208:
205:
201:
199:
191:
187:
184:
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
166:
157:
154:
150:
145:
139:
138:
133:
130:
126:
123:
119:
118:
117:
115:
110:
109:
105:
101:
93:
92:
88:
84:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
803:
800:
767:
760:Closing note
759:
746:
738:
721:
716:
699:
633:I think the
567:
532:
469:
442:
414:
397:
389:
362:
329:
293:
254:WP Australia
250:WP Polynesia
246:WP Caribbean
226:Peter Ormond
222:Miesianiacal
211:
197:
182:
162:
142:
113:
111:
97:
80:
73:Elizabeth II
49:
47:
35:
28:
270:WP Politics
234:Neveselbert
153:no shortage
129:this source
124:Why's that?
83:Rockhead126
786:Nikkimaria
681:this story
360:All good!
238:WP Royalty
91:2022-09-20
81:Notified:
54:Nikkimaria
766:has been
661:FeralOink
572:FeralOink
564:GoodDay's
471:User:John
390:Note: CCI
258:WP Canada
198:Thinker78
762:: This
743:Hog Farm
616:Keivan.f
478:Keivan.f
439:Hog Farm
282:WP Women
230:Keivan.f
725:Georgia
595:Векочел
546:GoodDay
510:GoodDay
455:GoodDay
433:GoodDay
417:GoodDay
401:Georgia
393:checked
366:Georgia
333:Georgia
297:Georgia
218:GoodDay
183:Comment
610:WP:BLP
560:buidhe
535:buidhe
204:(talk)
149:Here's
114:sample
87:WP Bio
58:FACBot
722:Sandy
704:DrKay
398:Sandy
363:Sandy
330:Sandy
294:Sandy
262:WP UK
214:DrKay
16:<
790:talk
768:kept
748:Talk
730:Talk
708:talk
689:talk
685:John
665:talk
643:talk
639:John
599:talk
576:talk
550:talk
514:talk
499:talk
495:John
459:talk
444:Talk
421:talk
406:Talk
371:Talk
352:talk
348:John
338:Talk
325:John
316:talk
312:John
302:Talk
289:John
173:talk
169:John
104:talk
100:John
62:talk
56:via
50:kept
782:bot
732:)
568:has
490:FAC
408:)
373:)
340:)
304:)
52:by
792:)
778:}}
772:{{
710:)
691:)
667:)
645:)
601:)
578:)
552:)
531:)
527:·
516:)
501:)
461:)
423:)
395:.
354:)
318:)
284:.
280:,
276:,
272:,
268:,
264:,
260:,
256:,
252:,
248:,
244:,
240:,
236:,
232:,
228:,
224:,
220:,
216:,
175:)
106:)
85:,
67:.
33:.
788:(
728:(
706:(
687:(
663:(
641:(
597:(
574:(
548:(
529:c
525:t
512:(
497:(
457:(
435::
431:@
419:(
404:(
369:(
350:(
336:(
314:(
300:(
171:(
102:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.