Talk:James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge

Move

I see no reason why this page should be moved:

• Burke's Peerage
• Complete Peerage, Vol 2, p 496
• Original manuscripts from the time
• Haydn's Book of Dignities (see entry for CAMBRIDGE, for example)
• Nicolas' Peerage
• Carter's History of Cambridge

all agree his name was James Stuart. DrKiernan (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course that was his name, he was baptised James and he was of the House of Stuart, but Prince James was his proper name:

• Cracroft's Peerage
• Britain's genealogy
• This is Cambridge
• Beatty's English Royal Family

and also, James VI and I encouraged the use of these titles. As such, both names were eligible, what difference is it to you? --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cracroft, "euweb", and This is Cambridge are not academic sources, and Beatty is a retired accountant from Florida. John Burke (genealogist), Complete Peerage and Nicholas Harris Nicolas are subject specialists and experts. Haydn is a standard reference work. The specialist, expert sources are of far higher quality, and should be taken more seriously than self-published websites, at least one of which has copied material directly from wikipedia without acknowledging that they've done so.

You are not following procedure. You must do a requested move for controversial moves. Until that closes the page should remain at its original title. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   some spots of prose issues as well as MOS issues

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Outdated referencing, and unsourced information

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Given the outdated nature of the sources, I cannot tell if it covers all aspects of the scholarship

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Given the outdated nature of the sources, it's hard to determine if it's following the current scholarship

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Awkward phrasing "but both titles were extinct until his brother's birth after he died young"... not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but it's not clear.
  • We don't italicise things such as "1st and last Duke of Cambridge". Also - you've mixed styles here - "1st" but "last" - suggest "first and last" as less jarring.
  • Strictly speaking calling him the "first and last Duke of Cambridge" isn't quite correct - he's the first and last duke of THIS creation.
  • "He" should be "Cambridge" at the start of each paragraph in the lead.
  • "Had Cambridge survived his early years, there were strong chances that he would actually succeed to the crown,..." mixing tenses here - should be "Had Cambridge survived his early years, there were strong chances that he would actually have succeeded to the crown,..."
  • I believe it should be "King Charles" or "king"... not "King"
• Early life:
  • Section title is confusing - there is not any "later" life really to discuss. Suggest just "Life"
  • "the second but first surviving son and child of James II of England (then James, Duke of York) and his Duchess" ... James wasn't king then, so this is confusing. Nor should "James, Duke of York" be italicised. Suggest "the second but first surviving son and child James, Duke of York (later James II of England) and his Duchess..."
  • What's the point of "...and former Bishop of London."? Suggest cutting it as unneeded detail.
  • "The Queen mother stood as "... Let's name her rather than just her title?
  • The note explaining what "The State" was isn't helpful. Why is this level of detail needed? We could just say that Henry Jermyn, Edward Montagu and Mary Fairfax took part in the ceremony.
  • Second paragraph should begin "James was the ..." or "Cambridge..." but I think it would be better to refer to him as "James" prior to his creation as Duke of Cambridge. There are other problems with this paragraph - it's unsourced. And it repeats the fact that he was the grandson of Charles I. Another problem is "One year after Cambridge's death, he converted to Roman Catholicism." On first reading this looks like Cambridge converted to Catholicism after Cambridge's death. Need clarity.
  • "Of the four sons of the Duke of York who bore the title Duke of Cambridge, only two were ever formally created so: Cambridge and his brother Edgar. In 1665, a younger sister named Anne was born; she would ascend the throne one day. Anne was the only sister at whose birth Cambridge was still alive. In 1666, Cambridge stood as godfather at the baptism of his brother, the short-lived Duke of Kendal." Unsourced. Another problem is that we don't italicise "Duke of Cambridge".
  • "...in quite a pompous ceremony." - opinion or unencyclopedic. Either needs attribution to who said it was pompous or elimination.
  • Last paragraph - Edward Montagu has already been linked.
  • Who was Scott the son of?
  • "However, Cambridge only enjoyed this pension two, maybe three times. The money were used by others, probably nannies and his parents, in Cambridge's benefit, until Cambridge would complete his fourteenth year." How can we know that he only used it twice or three times? And what do we care? Also, grammar issue with "the money were used" - should be either "the moneys were" or "The money was". Suggest rewriting the whole thing to "The money would not be controlled by Cambridge until his fourteenth year; until then the moneys were likely controlled by his parents or his nannies."
• Death:
  • "Duke of Kendal died"... shouldn't this be just Kendal?
• Aftermath:
  • "that the State of England was very concerned" - should be just "that the English were very concerned". "State of England" is very awkward phrasing.
  • "thus the diplomats must have been disappointed when this really did happen" Huh? How did we get to "diplomats" from the "state of England"? And its speculation - really not encyclopedic. Suggest just cutting this.
• Sourcing - are there no modern sources for this duke? Besides the modern edition of Pepys diary - which is a primary source and really shouldn't be used in this article except for quotations, the next most recent source is from 1924 and the others all predate 1849. Strickland is quite outdated and there really does need to be some more modern sourcing on this article before I feel comfortable passing it. I note there is a modern (2000) biography of his father by Miller, as well as any number of other biographies of James - these should be consulted. As an example of why relying on old works for data is a problem - I consulted James II's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article. In it .. it states that "The date of James's conversion to Catholicism cannot be pinpointed." but this article states as fact "One year after Cambridge's death, he converted to Roman Catholicism." but this is totally unsourced. This lack of modern sourcing is a big concern and needs addressing before I'll feel comfortable passing the article as a GA.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

All issues pretty much solved now. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, there is still way too much reliance on older sources and no content from newer biographies and a primary source - there are still quite a lot of facts cited to Pepys' diary, you're citing things to the peerage which is not a reliable source, nor is heraldica. Instead of incorporating what I pointed out about how there is diversity amongst historians on when exactly James converted to Catholicism, you've dogmatically stated one date that's sourced to the BBC.... my local town's library sucks and even it has a number of books on Charles and James... one of which agrees with the ODNB article on James, but states that he publically stated he was a Catholic after the date you've used here. The major issue with this article is the outdated sources - not the prose concerns. Until the sourcing issues are addressed, I cannot pass the article for GA. Old sources from the middle of the 1800s are not going to be reliable for the current historical thought on this prince, it's that simple. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything being done on this? If I don't see some action shortly, I will be failing the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to these books yet, so maybe you could place it on hold? --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is already on hold, so that won't change, but if the books are going to take any time, we should probably not leave the article hanging for long periods of time. If you won't be able to address these issues within the next few days, it's probably best to take your time, get everything you need, and start a fresh nomination when you're ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Having heard nothing else on this, I'm going to fail the article. Strongly suggest waiting until the sourcing issues are addressed before nominating again. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)