Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buckingham Palace/Archive 1

Buckingham Palace

This is not a complete self nomination as there was a a page here before I re-wrote it a month or so ago, and there have been some good copy-edits since. I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it needed more photographs etc, however, one can't just wander in and take a few snaps, all images of the rear facades and interiors are 'crown copyright'. For the British this is an important article, so it has to be right and correct. Giano 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I've done superficial copy-editing. Very nice well-balanced article, a pleasure to read and thoughtfully illustrated, with surprises like the vivid portrait of a young woman of 18, as Queen Victoria was when she moved into Buckingham Palace, in place of the expected grim/glum old lady in widow's weeds. It's a relief to see that the excesses of royal capitalization (like "The" Queen) that were introduced at one point have now been reverted to something more reasonable. Bishonen | Talk 23:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object: not NPOV. Littered with POV "magnificent"s, unsupported statements ("Buckingham Palace security is said to be very high") and combinations of the two ("All members of British society are considered to have an equal opportunity to be awarded an honour"). Mark¹ 03:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out the "considered" I can't do any more to the statement as it is now "considered" to be true. The 3x "magnificents" have all gone. Security is said to be high,(various statements to House of Commons by Home Secretary) but as it seems to be almost constantly breached I think "said" is the correct word. Further details of security measures are not published. Giano 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet more: entertaining on a majestic scale; is considered to be the most sumptuous and beautiful in the palace; It seems unlikely they would have left Mrs. Roosevelt in the empty palace to face the nightly blitz alone. Mark¹ 09:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the points you are making, unfortunately these flowery adjectives are the one's used by many authors when describing the interiors of such places. One should remember that his building was designed to be magnificent, and overpoweringly glorious though I have attempted to tone the adjectives down. However, I think the adjective 'majestic' for describing the entertaining at Buckingham Palace during the Edwardian period, when the British Empire was at it zenith is justified, the palace did, and was expected, to reflect that imperial glory. Mark's point on the "most beautiful room" is now attributed. I have now removed the Eleanor Roosevelt anecdote, which I inserted as I thought it was quite amusing and may have been of interest to readers in the USA. I hope one of them re-inserts it! I think a long potentially boring page like this need one or two lighter paragraphs. Giano 13:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the article currently refers somewhat obliquely to the bombing of the palace during WWII. I think a little bit more could be said about that - when did it happen? How much damage was done? Were any royals in the palace at the time? And the Queen Mother's quote about looking the East End in the face could be included. Otherwise, an excellent article. Worldtraveller 14:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War time section now included, QM's quote is now there, and Eleanor Roosevelt is back! Giano 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A very interesting and useful addition, I think it has improved this excellent article and support the nomination. Worldtraveller 16:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Objection, this article's text is very well done, but its photo selection could be improved. There should be photos of the interior of the building and its gardens. Many people are familiar with the palace's facade, but few know its inner contents.Dinopup 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

I completely agree with you, however please see the nomination and explanation at the top of the page. The external link on the page does show a few rooms etc. Believe me that is the best that is possible - even those attending their own investitures, and garden parties are forbidden to take photos.Giano 21:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Shame about the interior photos, though. I love the picture of the Union Flag! Zerbey 05:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "Following this event the British Government once again assured the nation that their sovereign's security had been subsequently increased."... Please! Wikipedia articles about Uk royalty and peerage have an almost unbearable royalist slant, this article is no exception. Morwen - Talk 14:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I've removed the worst of this. Neutral on article now. Morwen - Talk 17:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I note that it could do with a site map, or at least a rough plan of the palace itself, showing the various wings/courtyards/whatever. Morwen - Talk 17:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am very surprised indeed Morwen feels this article has/had a Royal bias, her edit summary: "rm propaganda - gongs are still given mainly to civil servants " may be her view, but the reality that all Britons who commit a good deed are eligible - is an indisputable fact. Regarding Morwen's edit removing POV changing my "Buckingham Palace security is said to be very high" followed by a list of breaches, to Morwen's "Royal security is supposedly high, but is more well known for a series of high-profile intrusions, both at the Palace and elsewhere" does not seem to me to be an example of my POV - merely a change of word order. I have only reverted one of Morwen's edits, the Daily Mirror was not the only newspaper to publish photos of the last major breach of security. Finally in the present state of national security non copyright plans of Buckingham Palace are unsurprisingly not available. Giano 19:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you are suprised that I am objecting to the POV in the article, when there are other objections to the same thing above. All I am noting is that it hadn't been cleaned up entirely.

The sentence I removed said that "All members of British society have an equal opportunity to be awarded an honour." This is not what you are saying I removed. Certainly, a few awards are handed out to people who would previously have done so, but "equal opporunity" presents something much stronger. If you want to respond to that, move this bit of th conversation to Talk:Buckingham Palace and we argue there. The fact that it was a Daily Mirror reporter should certainly be mentioned. The word "gleefully" was certainly POV, as it had a tone of disapproval of the newspapers actions. And the sentence "Following this event the British Government once again assured the nation that their sovereign's security had been subsequently increased." is laughable, and presents the UK as a nation of placid subjects. The rest of edit that was indeed a tidyup. Exact plans are certainly not available, but there should be no problem rough plans. Aerial photography of the area is available, after all! Morwen - Talk 19:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did the British Government not in fact say that? - I think you have a problem with the subject matter in general - which is why I hope this never makes the main page Giano 19:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (that is Giano, but the server is playing up and I have not watch list, and now can't log in!

I did a bit of a search and couldn't find anything along the lines. If you can find anything specific, we can put something more appropriate in. I hope you get my point that it is the tone of this article generally that is a problem. Does this mean you are withdrawing this nomination? Morwen - Talk 20:29, 23 Feb

2005 (UTC)

No I never withdraw anything! - You obviously have a problem with the page, I don't. We shall see how the vote goes and that can decide Giano 21:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)