Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional background context for those unfamiliar with subject matter
| ||
---|---|---|
Imagine traveling back 200 years in time. If you had done so to tell a young northern German prince that he would become the father-in-law of Europe, he probably would have said you were being nonsensical. After all, this German prince, whose parents were only distantly related to European royalty, came from a simple background. However, life had its surprises for this German prince. An extremely polemic debate arose over who would eventually rule his homeland and nearby Denmark. This German prince happened to have a wife with close family connections to Danish royalty. Consequently, with the support of multiple European nations, this prince was chosen to be the next king of Denmark. And when the time came in 1863, he and his wife became King Christian IX and Queen Louise. Nevertheless, it was not enough for Christian and his eldest son to secure their place on the Danish throne (especially in the eyes of Louise). First, Christian’s eldest daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Britain. Second, Greece needed a new king because they had shown the door to their last one. As a result, the Greeks victoriously voted to install Christian’s second son on their throne. Third, Christian’s second daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Russia. Fourth, Christian’s youngest daughter married the throneless heir of the German Kingdom of Hanover. Their shared bond was that both of their families had lost territory at the hands of an even stronger German kingdom. And finally, Christian’s youngest son spent his life sailing the seas with a French princess by his side. More than a century after Christian’s death, the story continues. Like an exponential function in mathematics, his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and further progeny have increased the number of his descendants more quickly with each passing generation. These descendants have wed into royalty all around Europe. Because of this, six of the ten current heirs to European thrones can claim Christian IX as their ancestor! Can you guess which ones?
|
This list on Christian IX’s descendants helps to tell the story of a Danish king, his queen, his children, his grandchildren, and his great-grandchildren. I will note that this list was vetted both at Articles for creation and at Did you know.
This nomination is significant for various reasons. Personally, this is my first attempt to create a featured list on Wikipedia, and its success would demonstrate that I am capable of producing exemplary content. Second, I note that at the time of this nomination, only 10 royalty-related lists, and none on descendants of individuals, are of featured status. I hope that this article can serve as a model to all Wikipedia editors of what a great royal and genealogical list can look like. Finally, and above all, I hope to show a general audience that there is far more to (European) royalty than just the House of Windsor! Everyone is welcome to give feedback to make these goals a reality!
Thank you, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Borsoka
[edit]Reading through the list and its sources, I am not convinced that it is fully in line with Wikipedia:Notability, and I think its subject is not verified by a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, its DYK was held for a very long time, and I wasn't entirely sure it passed WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — 48JCL 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Very similar concerns were raised at the Did you know nomination. I responded to this inquiry by noting that Aronson 2000 and Lerche and Mandal 2003 established notability. The objector then conceded the point (in my eyes). Both of the aforementioned sources (albeit the 2020 version of Aronson's text) are also listed in the "Further reading" section of this article.
- That being said, I will not object if the consensus of this discussion is to merge or delete this stand-alone list. If so, I ask that the tables be merged into the "Issue" (or corresponding) sections of the articles on Christian IX and his children. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank your for the links. I am not sure that works written by Theo Aronson are reliable sources. Miranda Carter did not write of Christian's descendants, but of three cousins who ruled three great powers during WWI. Lerche and Mandal do not seem to be historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(unindenting to ensure collapse template works properly) So that my thought process in writing the article is clear both to you and to everyone else commenting, I will qualify the notability of the subject matter further:
Detailed explanation of (potential) reliability of Further reading texts
|
---|
|
Although I personally believe these backgrounds on the authors sufficiently qualify the topic for a Wikipedia article, I will leave it to this page's consensus to see if this is truly the case. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With these sources, surely these should replace the "Royal Family Tree" sources (which appear to be SPS) could be replaced, right? I am still not going to warrant an oppose, but I would suggest withdrawal, there is a lot of work that could be done. 48JCL public (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. I have not been convinced about the notability of this list. I think the core information of this list could be summarised in one or two sentences in the article about Christian IX. I oppose its nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback, Borsoka. If I may ask, which part of WP:GNG do you believe the list does not meet? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, aside from the sources already present, I have been unable to find a reliable text that covers Christian IX's descendants to the extent this list does. As I have said before, I will not object to merging the content into Christian and Louise's articles if the nomination fails. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback, Borsoka. If I may ask, which part of WP:GNG do you believe the list does not meet? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. I have not been convinced about the notability of this list. I think the core information of this list could be summarised in one or two sentences in the article about Christian IX. I oppose its nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL
[edit]- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.|[[Name]]
becomes!scope=row |[[Name]]
. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions.
- All "primary" columns in the tables have been defined. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a minor note on to this- the row and col scopes by default bold the text in those headers, so since you did so as well right now they're double-bolded, which should be fixed. --PresN 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for noting this. I have removed the excess bolding both in the table headers and elsewhere in the article. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a minor note on to this- the row and col scopes by default bold the text in those headers, so since you did so as well right now they're double-bolded, which should be fixed. --PresN 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All "primary" columns in the tables have been defined. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a list should have "This article describes the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Christian and Louise." at the end of the list
- @48JCL: Could you please suggest how this sentence should be replaced? Per WP:SALLEAD, the inclusion criteria of a stand-alone list should make a direct statement about the inclusion criteria. This is the purpose of the text you quoted. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten that sentence to attempt to make the inclusion criteria as explicit as possible without actively self-referencing the article. Please let me know if I should further modify the text. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue with sources
I am noticing Blogspot and Wordpress being cited. What makes them reliable? More to come. 48JCL 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the Blogspot and WordPress sources. That being said, my rationale for including them was that the specific authors appeared to have professional credentials in their field. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that does not exactly make it reliable, still being a SPS. I'm still not sure whether or not this article should be supported, but thanks for addressing my concerns. 48JCL 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Dylan620
[edit]Hi Andrew – I've just started working on a review that will focus primarily on prose and images, and should be done by the end of the day Monday at the latest. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick update: while I have been making quite a bit of progress with this review, I've unfortunately been slowed down by real-life stuff, so I'm running a bit behind schedule. I get out of work fairly early tomorrow, so knock on wood, I should be able to finish in the next 24 hours or so. I do have a few preliminary comments:
- File:Princess Dagmar of Denmark.jpg – the source URL provides a completely different image
- File:Louise Princess Royal.jpg – the source just circles back to the ENWP page for the upload
- File:Princess Princess Maria of Greece and Denmark with her parents and siblinsg.jpg – uploader partial-blocked from the article and draft namespaces for copyright violations
- File:GustavDenmark.jpg – uploader indefinitely site-blocked for copyright violations
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:
- I have replaced the portrait of Dagmar with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time she died (to be consistent with the entries on other royals with no available portrait).
- I have replaced the portrait of Louise with the one used in her article's lede infobox.
- I have removed the portrait of George I's family altogether. In any case, his youngest son, Christopher, was not yet born when the image was taken.
- I have likewise replaced the portrait of Gustav with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time he died. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again Andrew – I've finally finished the review, and I'm sorry it took so long. This was probably the most challenging image review I've done since I started tackling them earlier this year, since I'm not super familiar with European public domain laws and needed to give myself something of a crash course. The majority of images check out for licensing and sourcing. I took it upon myself to add missing US public domain tags on Commons in cases where I felt comfortable doing so (see my edits there). A few images are sourced to offline refs, which I'm choosing to accept in good faith. However, there are some issues:
- I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
- On that note, is a "portrait of a coat of arms" really a portrait? This is super nitpicky, but the portrait article states that a portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face is always predominant. Every coat of arms usage here has alt text that describes the coat as a portrait.
- File:Christian IX of Denmark and family 1862.jpg – uploader partially blocked on ENWP from article and draft spaces. (Coincidentally, this is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of George I's family.) This image seems to be an alternate version of File:Christian IX Denmark and family 1862.jpg, which, per that file's description page, was apparently part of a legal dispute between the NPG and the WMF. Maybe I'm worrying too much, but I would be wary of including either image here.
- File:Family Photo.jpg – The source URL is dead. There is an archived link available, but it's not loading the images on my end.
- File:Alexander russia.jpg – The source URL is dead.
- File:Ernstaugusthannover.jpg – Uploader indefinitely site-blocked from ENWP for copyright violations. (This is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of Gustav.)
- File:Xenia, russian grand duchess.jpg – The source URL does not contain this image.
- I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
- The prose is good overall, but I do have a few queries/suggested adjustments:
- Moreover, he nearly abdicated... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here; indeed, this could probably be merged with the previous sentence by using a semicolon.
- Moreover, through her charity work... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here.
- Is there anything about Valdemar that could be added to the second paragraph of §Children?
- They then married in October 1866 – "Then" feels extraneous here.
- Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution. – I think this would read more smoothly as "Nicholas, Michael, and the former's five children were killed during the Russian Revolution."
- Quite impressive work overall, Andrew. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:
- Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dylan620: Thank you very much for your extensive review. Here is how I have addressed your feedback. Please let me know if anything else should be done.
- For the images:
- I have changed the alt text for Gustav's image to better describe the coat of arms. Moreover, I have rewritten the alt text descriptors for all of the coat of arms images to avoid mention of portraits.
- I have removed the family portrait for Christian IX, given the concerns you have described.
- I have likewise removed the family portrait for Frederick VIII.
- I have replaced the image of Alexander with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms, given the lack of other appropriate free-use images that I could locate.
- I have likewise replaced the image of Ernest Augustus with one of the pertinent Hanoverian coat of arms.
- I have likewise replaced the image of Xenia with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms.
- For the prose:
- I have removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Christian IX's background.
- I have likewise removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Louise's background.
- I have added some information on Valdemar in the second paragraph of the Children section, namely on how family ties influenced him to reject the Bulgarian throne.
- I have removed "then" from that sentence on Dagmar and Alexander III's marriage.
- I have rewritten that sentence on the deaths of Nicholas II, his children, and Michael as you have suggested.
- AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder
[edit]- I aim to do a full review, but looking at the lead initially, the sentence "The families of Christian and Louise, their children, and their grandchildren are described below." should be removed. The fact that the article is going to cover this is completely obvious from the title, so you don't need to state it in the prose. That will leave a lead of just three sentences, which is far too short for a FL. While the lead should provide a summary of the article, it should be more detailed than just three sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your initial comments, ChrisTheDude. I have removed the last sentence of the lede per your feedback. As for that section's length, I will be sure to rewrite the prose to provide a more comprehensive summary. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, so in order to push it past the finish line, pinging everyone involved who has not formally closed their review: @Borsoka, 48JCL, and ChrisTheDude:. Please support/oppose/recuse as appropriate. --PresN 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: - I was still waiting for the nominator to expand the woefully short lead before I started looking at anything else, but after more than two weeks that hasn't been done. If the nominator doesn't have any interest in doing that then I will have to
oppose..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- @AndrewPeterT: Hey Andy, just wanted to give you a quick heads up/reminder about this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: I am expanding the lede at this moment. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: Apologies for the delay in response; I have been busy off-wiki. I have expanded the article lede to four paragraphs. Would you please be able to let me know if the section should still be longer? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good - I will aim to do a full review tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: Apologies for the delay in response; I have been busy off-wiki. I have expanded the article lede to four paragraphs. Would you please be able to let me know if the section should still be longer? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: I am expanding the lede at this moment. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AndrewPeterT: Hey Andy, just wanted to give you a quick heads up/reminder about this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
[edit]- "Known as the "father-in-law of Europe", he and his queen consort," - this suggests that they were both known as the father-in-law
- I have moved the "father-in-law" information into the first sentence to make it more explicit that only Christian was known by that sobriquet. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Christian on first use in body
- I have inserted a link to Christian's article accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, Christian's popularity recovered" => "Christian's popularity recovered, however,"
- I have reworded the sentence in question accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Louise on first use in body
- I have inserted a link to Christian's article accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Christian IX and Louise had forty grandchildren via eight children" => "Christian IX and Louise had forty grandchildren: eight children"
- I have changed the "via" to a colon. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, Louise had one potential suitor in mind for Thyra" - don't think the "however" is needed
- I have removed "however" from that sentence. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Namely, Prince George died in a car accident on the way to the funeral of King Frederick VIII of Denmark. In addition, Prince Christian died of appendicitis" => "Prince George died in a car accident on the way to the funeral of King Frederick VIII of Denmark and Prince Christian died of appendicitis"
- I have combined those two sentences as suggested. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all I got. Fix these and I will be happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have resolved your concerns to the best of my ability. Assuming you have no further qualms, I look forward to your support. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And here it is :-) support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have resolved your concerns to the best of my ability. Assuming you have no further qualms, I look forward to your support. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not doing a full source review, but as a note: all of the ALLCAPS in the references should be fixed, e.g. "DEATH OF THE KING OF DENMARK. - A PEACEFUL END" -> "Death of the King of Denmark. - A Peaceful End". --PresN 15:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback, PresN. I have rewritten all of the reference titles in title case accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've dithered on this one for a while due to the oppose above, but I've come down on the side of this being a valid stand-alone list. I'm not sure that every monarch should get such a list, but someone with the sobriquet Father-in-law of Europe has enough weight to support such a list. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.