Jewels of Elizabeth II is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I recently wrote this page and I'm willing to do more work if needed. This is my first GA nom, be nice to me! ;p --Cameron* 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, as you requested on my talk page. I don't have time to do a full review right at the moment, but I'll give you a few comments that jumped out at me on my first run through the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it should have no original information in it and no need for references, unless you're supporting a direct quote.
There shouldn't be external links in the body of the text as there are in the General History section. These should be turned into references or moved into the external links section.
It looks like the first paragraphs of some of the two-paragraph sub-sections are unreferenced. I'm assuming this is because the same reference covers both the first and the second paragraphs. Could you possibly put a ref at the end of both paragraphs (using named refs, please, to avoid repetitions), to make it clearer that the same ref covers both paragraph? For example, one of these sections is the The King George IV State Diadem subsection.
There should not be a space between the punctuation and the ref.
It is broad in its coverage.
a(major aspects): b(focused):
My major concern with this article is that the entire thing is referenced to the same source. Now, this could be the best source possible for this article, which would mean that this is fine, but I think you may be leaving some things out with only using one source. Is there any information elsewhere on what the public thinks of these pieces of jewelry? By looking through some more sources, you may find more interesting tidbits that would be nice to incorporate into the article. You are definitely not running up against a length problem, so any additions should be fine.
Your image of Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Diamond and Pearl Tiara has a licensing problem, and is quite likely to be deleted in the next few days.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
These are the major issues that I saw with the article. I haven't done a complete check of prose, although from what I've seen it looks good, so I doubt there will be many issues there. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to deal with the issues I have raised above. Let me know here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, this is really helpful! --Cameron* 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I believe I have addressed all concerns now except getting additional sources which is proving exceptionally difficult. I do believe Field's book is the authority on this topic but I would have liked some outside, reliable views, as you suggested...--Cameron* 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work so far. Please note that you need to properly format current ref #3, which is one of your new refs and is currently just a bare link.
Please take your time in getting new sources...a decision doesn't need to be made about GA status right away and I would much rather see it passed after it has been improved rather than passed or failed as is. I would suggest checking out your local library, as well as looking for media sources on it (check for articles in major British newspapers, as well as possibly American or other foreign ones if the jewels were reported upon when they were worn on state visits). Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had a whole week yet? I will take a look in my library but I think online will be better in my case as I live on the continent. Best, --Cameron* 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've still got a week. That's what I was trying to emphasize with my above comment, but I apparently just made things more confusing *grin*. Sorry... Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. I found this whole thing extremely helpful and nicely organised. --Cameron* 18:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some 'Dress for the Occasion' refs, I think they are quite good. They are reliable (royal-collection.org) and back up important bits and bobs...Best, --Cameron* 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cameron! I'm just checking back in to see if you are still working on adding more information or if you are considering the article complete. Either way is good with me...just let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's taking so long! Would you mind giving me another couple of days. Content wise I think it's OK but I'd really like another few sources! ;) Thanks for putting up with me!! ;) Best, --Cameron* 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the length of time, and of course you can have another few days. Just let me know when you're ready. I'd always rather see the article improved, and thank you for working so hard to make this article even better than it already is. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no joy either...:( --Cameron* 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great on the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work on the article, and the new sources look fantastic. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Tiara - Image
Can we use a better image for the Vladimir? this is a bit more detailed; perhaps it could be cropped to remove the overly Canadian elements as well as make it a bit smaller. Thoughts? — [ roux ] [x] 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but it's copyrighted. It's a lovely photo though! ;) We're generally only allowed to use copyrighted media when there is no other option and it is vital to the understanding of the subject. :( Best, --Cameron* 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. my issue is that it's basically impossible to see any detail in the B&W photo. Let me see if I can find something free. — [ roux ] [x] 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. Npg.org.uk (national portrait gallery), vam.ac.uk (victoria and albert museum), claim copyright on images older than 300 years!! On top of that they display low pixel versions so you can't even use them under "fair use". --Cameron* 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gahh.. I wish we could use this!!! What are the rules on photos from royalcollection.org.uk? — [ roux ] [x] 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found an email address for the Royal Collection... here's hoping! — [ roux ] [x] 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're just as bad. And it takes weeks for them to reply! The last time I was refused they told be "Website rights are usually only granted for educational establishments or museums or galleries where the works are being shown."
PS: You can always add links to the external links section if you don't get permission. --Cameron* 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture Captions
Though not strictly pertinent to the main article many of the images have notable characters in them, such as the first Duke of Wellington (the godfather of the child in the picture) on the first picture of the page. Should these be added to the captions? 129.67.17.233 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough call. Most of me says no, as the focus is really on the jewellery. Part of me says yes, on general wikisurfing principles. — [ roux ] [x] 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contemplated adding Image:Victoria in her Coronation.jpg because Victoria was a great contributer to the collection and is seen wearing the George IV diadem. But a) we already have an image of the diadem and b) the article has quite a few images. I suppose it could be added to the feud section if one wished. ;) --Cameron* 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Vicky's picture is the better one for the Diadem.. (and my goodness, I'd never noticed how much Margaret and Elizabeth are the spitting image of Louise before...) — [ roux ] [x] 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS): 
c(OR): 
