Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead needs building

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and then make some initial comments. SilkTork *^YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make some comments as I read through, and then summarise. SilkTork *^YES! 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stable. There have been some recent edit wars. Nothing massive, but the article has been changing back and forth. Because of that even if everything else is fine with the article I will still be putting this on an extended hold, perhaps one month, to ensure that the article is stable. SilkTork *^YES! 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Images pass GA criteria for tags and captions. Not GA criteria, but among some very high quality images there are some very poor images - the one of the Queen at Trooping the Colour is particularly bad, while the lead image and the one with George Bush are quite brilliant. The layout of some of the images, particularly the first two, needs looking at, as they make the article look cluttered and untidy. SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tidied up the images. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage. This is quite a big topic, and I will need to do some research into the subject to see if the coverage at present is adequate and is what a general reader would expect. My initial feeling is that some material from Ancestry should be included here - while there is mention of her parentage in Early life, I feel it would be appropriate to have a dedicated section to explaining why this person is Queen of the UK, and also some mention of that should be in the lead. I feel that a section on what responsibilities and rights she has as Queen would also be appropriate and expected. I don't think there is excessive detail in any area, though the "Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth" section may need attention for choice of material - how much of that is essential, and is actually related to the section title? Consideration could be given to differentiating between her role as Queen and her personal life as these seem to be blurred at the moment - her pet dog biting her is personal life, for example. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a section on ancestry already which is mainly composed of an auto-hidden table. I think that table is more than enough for the scope of an article as broad as this. As to why is she the Queen, and her responsibilities and rights, I believe these should be covered in detail in a separate article, probably Monarchy of the United Kingdom; the present article is focused on the person, not necessarily her job. Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead needs building up considerably. This is a major topic, and the lead should reflect that. See WP:Lead. I think that other GA MoS aspects are acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a slight inclination toward praising Elizabeth. The 1980s section, for example has: "Elizabeth's personal courage, as well as her skill as a horsewoman, was shown in 1981..." followed by "Thatcher described the Queen as 'marvellous' and 'a perfect lady'...", while her controversial relationship with Diana is mentioned in a manner which paints Elizabeth in a very positive light: "The following year, she attempted to save the failing marriage of her eldest son, Charles, by counselling him and his wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, to patch up their differences". Also I am uncomfortable with "endured a state visit by the brutal communist dictator" - I can see that the source says "brutal dictator" and "less agreeable", however, I feel such language should be toned down in an encyclopedia. "As head of state she had to accept a state visit by the communist dictator..." would be more acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Monarchs & members of their families tend to get praise, weither they deserve it or not. Not certain, if we need mentioning of praises. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving WP:NPOV is very difficult, and is a common reason that articles do not meet GA criteria. Aiming for NPOV is important for Wikipedia, though notoriously difficult to achieve because the people who work on a subject are already pre-disposed to thinking positively of that subject and are not always aware of their bias. The incident I mentioned was about the Queen being shot at. The incident was not about the Queen displaying courage or horsemanship - that was the opinion of an observor which is secondary to the incident itself. If there is an overall assessment from her entire career that she has shown courage or is a skilled horsewoman, and this is a common term applied to her, then that would be appropriate to mention in the section on her personal characteristics - Public perception and character. These are reliable sources which report the incident in a neutral manner: [1], [2], [3]. What is noted is that they remark that the Queen was visibly shaken, but regained her composure. A suggested wording: "During the 1981 Trooping the Colour ceremony, six blank cartridges were fired at the Queen from close range as she rode down The Mall on her horse "Burmese". Nobody was hurt, and the 17 year old assailant, Marcus Sarjeant, was later sentenced to five years imprisonment." Accurate, informative and neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, your proposed wording is neutral & acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose is clear and readable with no jarring errors. Passes GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is well referenced, and sources on the whole do check out; though I will continue to check during this review, my expectation is that what is said here on the article has been said in reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that the article text is reliable, the material in some of the linked templates is not. For example, the order of precedence given in the template at the bottom of the page is disputed. Different sources give the Duchess of Cornwall either second or fourth; the Countess of Wessex either before or after Princess Anne; and Princess Michael of Kent either before or after Princess Alexandra. I presume, that as with media files, the GA criteria should apply not only to the article itself but to all its components? DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the article title & introduction is still contentions for some. Elizabeth II is a monarch of 16 countries & she's most identified with one of them, the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction/lead will need building and as part of that, yes, it would be appropriate to look at the question of focus as well as content. What is the issue with the title? It appears to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). SilkTork *^YES! 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some prefer the title as Elizabeth II, note the numerous 'page move requests' over the last few years. Some prefer the lead to read 'Queen regnant of the United Kingdom and fifteen other realms'. As for myself? I'm content with the current title & intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay is a Canadian republican and so prefers the current title because it favors his viewpoint by portraying the current Canadian Head of State as a foreigner. Similarly, Canadian monarchists want to drop the "United Kingdom" for similar reasons. There are also issues about British nationalists wishing to retain "United Kingdom" to favor their own POV. Apart from the neutrality angle though, there is also an issue about prose: the title is unnecessarily long as the country modifier is redundant. There is no need to disambiguate by country. DrKiernan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have proof of my political motives, concerning the article title? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: My opposition to changing the article title, is not politically motivated. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather absurdly chauvinistic view, isn't it? All four of her grandparents were born in the UK, as were 5 of her 8 great-grandparents (with a sixth who lived in the UK from the age of 4 onwards). If this were anybody but the monarch, it would surely be considered racist xenophobia to say she's not British, wouldn't it? At any rate, I'd want to add that Elizabeth II's greater "identification" with the United Kingdom is not simply a matter of perception, but of reality - she lives in the UK and is actually regularly involved in its day-to-day governance, whereas in all the other commonewalth realms her residual powers are exercised 99% of the time by the Governor-General. The current wording, which treats the UK as equivalent to all the others seems problematic. It is not POV to say "the UK and fifteen other realms" - it is POV not to say that. john k (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly remark. I do wish you would stop cluttering the discussion here. Actually as far as the (unwritten) constitution is concerned the Queen as at liberty to be a black lesbian Jew if she so wishes. The only specific limiter in legislation (by Act of Parliament) is that the Monarch must not be Catholic. Apart from that, the reigning Sovereign may be Muslim, a Jew, a black Jew, a black lesbian Jew, or if acceptable to the Accession Meeting of the Privy Council (in which all sixteen Realms are represented), a green alien from another galaxy. Enough 'Red-Kneckism' please. Ds1994 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly it indeed is; it reeks of an outdated, narrow colonial attitude. I wonder what he makes of the Queen's upcoming address to the UN, which she is making as monarch of all her realms equally? She must be nuts, clearly. ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract some of your comments. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is nothing stated that is incorrect? The British have an unwritten constitution and is based mainly on convention. This provides a remarkably degree of flexibility. The only limiter as state is the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Line of Succession. I also find the original reference to a 'black lesbian Jew' to be quite offensive, and such prejudice is specifically legislated against here in the United KIngdom.Ds1994 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on North Americans. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the words "North America" anywhere in there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They had already been removed, before my request for removal. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Well, a retroactive tisk-tisk to Ds1994, then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Early life section, in the part "Elizabeth was the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), and his wife, Elizabeth", but Elizabeth who? I don't know what would be more correct, to put Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Elizabeth, Duchess of York and then add (later Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother).Jibco (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very presentable article on a difficult and high profile topic. There have been five previous attempts to get this article acknowledged as a decent article; while each attempt failed, the process itself is useful as it identifies weaknesses and encourages people to make improvements. The main blocks previously were citation issues, which appear to have been resolved. I feel this article is very promising, and this attempt has a very good chance of succeeding. Edit warring and reverting has been an issue recently, and that has to be borne in mind while working on improving the article. If there are edit wars or excessive reverts during this review, then I will close it as a fail.

The article meets most of the GA criteria. The three areas of concern are:

• The lead needs building per WP:Lead
• The language and choice of material needs checking carefully to ensure neutrality. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• The coverage needs expanding to cover areas such an ancestry and responsibility, and possibly other others; personal life details need extracting from the sections about her role as the queen and placed in a personal life section.

The above three areas are actually quite difficult, and I anticipate this is going to take more than seven days; however, I will put on hold for an initial seven days to see what level of enthusiasm there is to push this forward. I am prepared to get involved and help out. Any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tread very carefully around the lead; what's there now is a delicate npov balance that was achieved some time ago and has been stable since. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I am becoming aware that there are a number of issues here. I hope we will be able to develop the lead in a careful NPOV manner. SilkTork *^YES!

I just started a new section on the role Elizabeth II has to play. This has been removed. I do not understand all the issues here, so I am not clear on why that was removed. As a general reader I would want and expect some detailed of the roles and duties of Elizabeth II. Let us discuss how to construct information in the article on those duties. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief version would be alright, which covers all 16 realm roles. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was the fairly crude cut and paste I did from Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Constitutional role. I trimmed it and changed Monarch to Elizabeth or the Queen, but did little more than that. Can we use it as a starting point? SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's yet to be established that the section is even desired. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criteria is that the article should remain focused on the topic. The topic of this article is Elizabeth II not the Monarchy. The Monarchy is covered in other articles. Similarly, we don't add an explanation of the role of the President of the United States to Barack Obama's article, instead we have an article on Barack Obama and an article on the Presidency. Elizabeth's biography and the article on the Monarchy should follow the same format and the same division of material. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In her role as the Monarch, Elizabeth is the ceremonial Head of State so oaths of allegiance are made to her,^[1] and her image appears on postage stamps, coins, and banknotes.^[2] She takes no direct part in Government, and acts of state done in the name of the Crown, or personally performed by her, such as the Queen's Speech and the State Opening of Parliament, depend upon decisions made by others, such as the Government, and the Church of England. Her role is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honours. Constitutionally, she will act only upon the advice of the Government; her practical functions in that regard are only "to advise, to be consulted, and to warn".^[3]

Whenever necessary, she is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, she must appoint an individual who commands the support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in that House. The Prime Minister takes office by attending the Monarch in private audience, and Kissing Hands, and that appointment is immediately effective without any other formality or instrument.^[4] In a "hung parliament", in which no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch has an increased degree of latitude in choosing the individual likely to command most support, but it would usually be the leader of the largest party.^[5][6] According to the Lascelles Principles, if a minority government asked to dissolve Parliament to call an early election to strengthen its position, the Queen could refuse. When Harold Wilson requested a dissolution late in 1974, the Queen granted his request as Edward Heath had already failed to form a coalition. The resulting general election gave Wilson a small majority.^[7] The Queen could in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, but the last monarch to remove a Prime Minister was William IV, who dismissed Lord Melbourne in 1834.^[8]

In order to make progress on this in a constructive and harmonious manner, there should be no reverts. It is highly likely that I or someone else will make future edits that will cause concern for one editor or another. Please bring concerns here to the talkpage. I am totally impartial and will listen to advise and rationales. If there is a genuine reason why an edit should not remain, then be assured, it will not remain. But let us discuss it first. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it will create a rather messy affair, both in the article and on the talk page. Is WP:BRD not a sufficient policy to govern this? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because people could be Bold and replace the material and then we have an edit war. What we need here is discussion and explanation and mutual respect. Reverting is sometimes felt as an aggressive act, and can aggravate a situation. Discussion and consensus are the Wiki way. SilkTork *^YES! 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One revert does not an edit war make. But, we shall see what others think. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. But unfortunately that's where an edit war starts. So, no reverts please, and nobody is then tempted to revert the revert. SilkTork *^YES! 16:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it the wrong way around, reverts to the previous consensus version are fine. It's reverts of reversions that are unwise. The burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the person who wishes to move away from the present consensus to gain consensus before making a contentious edit. It is the original version that has precedence over the new version until a new consensus is formed. If we do it your way, then we'll have the page moved to "Elizabeth II" and "Supreme Governor" removed from the lead in no time, and no-one would be able to revert it. Oh wait ... Yes, let's do it your way. Now, where's that move tag ... DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doc is correct, the onus is on the pro-changers. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the history. The Queen's role in government has been in the article from the start. There has been a section or subsection marked Role in government from 2003. In July last year DrKiernan removed that section, based on this comment on the talkpage which generated one response which was fairly neutral. If people wish to apply "The burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the person who wishes to move away from the present consensus to gain consensus before making a contentious edit," then I don't see how consensus has been achieved by that comment to undo a section that has been in the article for over 6 years. The section has for many years been a viable part of this article. I wasn't even aware there had been such a section, but one of my first observations was that there should be in an article on a monarch some information on the monarch's role - this is fairly basic stuff. We will make more progress on this article if we at this point agree that there will be no reverts. Under DrKiernan comments above I would be entitled to revert his own removal of the Role section as it was a contentious edit done without consensus. However, I would rather we discussed the matter. My observation of the history of this article is that there has sometimes been an inclination for viewpoints to be asserted by reverts rather than open discussion. I would want, during this GA Review, for there to be discussions not reverts. If people feel they are unable to prevent themselves from reverting, please let me know and I will close the Review now. SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors feel that anything 'only' mentioning Elizabeth II's role in the United kingdom, is a breach of NPoV. This is related to the past page-move requests, the Infobox's content & the article's introduction ('16 realms' instead of 'the UK and 15 other realms'). GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to editors' feelings. What do reliable sources say? That's usually the way to sort out difficulties - or do the sources say different things? SilkTork *^YES! 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely ignored the argument to remove the section, and instead try to force your point by mounting a subtle personal attack. Currently, you are the only one trying to insert the section and everyone else who has commented is against it. The removal and the revert have consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have hundreds of sources for Elizabeth II's role as Monarch of the United Kingdom, while just a few sources for her roles as Monarch of the other realms. There'd still be cries of NPoV breach, if you added that section. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If it is the case that there are issues over NPOV, and editors are unwilling to follow reliable sources, then it is unlikely for this article to meet GA criteria within a reasonable space of time. I suggest this article needs dispute resolution assistance before another GA review. An experienced and neutral editor who is used to content disputes should be asked to look into the issues regarding this article. When the issues have been resolved, another GA review can be requested. Unless there are objections, I will close this GA review as a fail tomorrow. SilkTork *^YES! 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've no probs with having the section added. Of the 16 realms, the UK is the one that's the most identified with Elizabeth II. But that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot follow very well what still needs to be fixed. Could you quickly point to what is still left to do? Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs building per WP:Lead
• The language and choice of material needs checking carefully to ensure neutrality. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• The coverage needs expanding to cover areas such an ancestry and responsibility, and possibly other others; personal life details need extracting from the sections about her role as the queen and placed in a personal life section. SilkTork *^YES! 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are content issues regarding this article which appear to be unresolved. Unless there is an objection, I will close this review tomorrow and suggest people seek out an uninvolved editor, perhaps from Wikipedia:Editor assistance, to look into the content issues. When the content issues have been resolved, the article can be nominated for GA again. SilkTork *^YES! 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no objections from me. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. SilkTork *^YES! 09:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]