Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 17, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 28 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe to Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
the English article say that she has been gang raped.
The French version say that she has been slain, then when she was already dead, they raped her. ("Ses bourreaux, avinés, après l' avoir massacrée, violent son corps, sans vie, devant la foule, sur la voie publique")
So when she was raped... she was still alive or dead ? Froggy helps ;-) 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It says her father-in-law finally succeeded in gaining her body and it was interred in his crypt. Her father-in-law
duke of Penthièvrewas long dead in 1814 so that last sentence needs to be removed.
This is definitely wrong. Glory and Terror is very specific in stating that the reports of her brutal murder and desecration of her corpse had been wildly exaggerated for propagandistic purpose. -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.196 ( talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What happened to Princess de Lamballe, a gentle and relatively progressive soul (as demonstrated by what she would swear to and what she wouldn't), that horrific end at the hands of a degenerate mob, was always to me, the cautionary tale against reform through violent revolution, where fury over past grievances resided over reason and morality; the victory of the people then forever shadowed with bloodlust and madness in the ages to come. To Killy-the-frog, it was the first, at least in the English books I've read of the subject it was. - T'Sura (2007 March 8th)
Research of my family tree by my father led him to believe that she gave birth to a son whilst in England, the father unknown. The name De Lamballe became Lamble and her son was left in England when she returned to France and faced her death. Any other information regarding this claim would be much appreciated. -S. Lamble May 2010
...about this sentence in the lead:
Which "movement of anti-revolutionary propaganda" was "sparked" by her death, which "ultimately led to the development and implementation of the Reign of Terror" ?
Where is the source for this & where is this 'fact' developed in the article?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This portrait attributed to Duplessis and (here and there) supposed te be the princess of Lamballe is wrong. First, it's not her face at all... But above all, NEVER a princess of such a high rank like she was (born princess of Savoy, by marriage 'princesse du sang' in France and member of the royal family) would have been painted with this plunging neckline, showing her nipples. Absolutely impossible... 2A01:E35:2E2F:5920:FC64:6B97:22DF:160 ( talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely impossible? Why? Have you ever seen portraits of that period of other noble women in a similar rank? I come from such an old French family and even among my female ancestors we have a lot of portraits with "such a plunging neckline". Look at portraits showing Marie Antoinette! I don't know what you mean. -- ReneSMdFA ( talk) 06:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
YES this is LouisPhilippeCharles but my real name is tom because that is a username and not a real person morons. I have reverted this page about 5/6/7 times due to the facts that a large amount of the info on the page is misleading incorrect and just embarressing to read due to the level of incompetence that people IE factstraight insist on putting in it. for one not SHE WAS ITALIAN BORN SO NOT M L THERESE BUT MARIA TERESA LUISA and carignano is a title AND NOT a name and therefore pretty much irrelevant bar the fact her father was the prince of C it amazes me that people regarding this princess have been soooooo painfully stupid childish and seem to think they have some sort of ownership over an article on an internet encyclopedia also her husband was a bourbon no more no less what is the issue with adding people paternal titles to names like Savoy and Bourbon it is just stupid beyond belief as well as greatly frustrating I AM HELPING NOT CAUSING A PROBLEM I AM CORRECTING INFORMATION NOT BEING A VANDAL but users such as factstraight are moronic, he is probably a middle aged balding married man with no job anyway. pathetic to be honest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.46.152 ( talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd ( talk · contribs) 15:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems good and well-sourced at first glance. Let the review begin!
Luxtay the
IInd (
talketh to me) 15:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This article fails the first two criteria—it fails 1a with inconsistent spelling, incredibly long paragraphs without any breaks, and the dialogue in the Death section being rather confusing. It fails 1b immediately as well; the templates at the article's beginning are sorted in violation of MOS:LEAD. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The sources in these articles are generally good, but the article automatically fails 2b because of the final statement in the Marriage section being unreferenced. Also, this isn't a rule, but the article also cites Hardy's 1908 work on her almost everywhere. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The article is often rambly, although it covers the important aspects of her life well. Not much else to comment on. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The images are very well-done and high quality and none of them violates any copyright laws; the article is subject to active editing, but not edit-warring; sadly, it has some bias in the later sections against the revolutionaries so it doesn't pass criteria 4. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The number hashes look weird now. Anyway, @ Dialuanny0, thank you for nominating this article. Sadly, it did not pass, and I invite you to fix the issues described in the review. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, this could be considered a quickfail because of violations of the neutral point of view policy (see quickfail rule 3). Statements such as "it was a frequent slander that the two had been lovers" and puffery like "enormous", "mocked", and "propaganda" disqualify this in my opinion. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 18:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved to the proposed title. Alternative proposals may be raised as a new request. ( non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe →
Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy – Present title is unnecessarily long, in violation of
WP:CONCISE. The proposed title is also more
WP:CONSISTENT under the guideline of
WP:NCROY as most deceased royal women have article titles using their birth name. The proposed title is also a primary redirect, so there’s no ambiguity here.
estar8806 (
talk)
★ 02:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area.Her given name alone would not do this. The proposal also, incidentally, conflicts with WP:NCROY. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 17, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 28 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe to Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
the English article say that she has been gang raped.
The French version say that she has been slain, then when she was already dead, they raped her. ("Ses bourreaux, avinés, après l' avoir massacrée, violent son corps, sans vie, devant la foule, sur la voie publique")
So when she was raped... she was still alive or dead ? Froggy helps ;-) 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It says her father-in-law finally succeeded in gaining her body and it was interred in his crypt. Her father-in-law
duke of Penthièvrewas long dead in 1814 so that last sentence needs to be removed.
This is definitely wrong. Glory and Terror is very specific in stating that the reports of her brutal murder and desecration of her corpse had been wildly exaggerated for propagandistic purpose. -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.196 ( talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What happened to Princess de Lamballe, a gentle and relatively progressive soul (as demonstrated by what she would swear to and what she wouldn't), that horrific end at the hands of a degenerate mob, was always to me, the cautionary tale against reform through violent revolution, where fury over past grievances resided over reason and morality; the victory of the people then forever shadowed with bloodlust and madness in the ages to come. To Killy-the-frog, it was the first, at least in the English books I've read of the subject it was. - T'Sura (2007 March 8th)
Research of my family tree by my father led him to believe that she gave birth to a son whilst in England, the father unknown. The name De Lamballe became Lamble and her son was left in England when she returned to France and faced her death. Any other information regarding this claim would be much appreciated. -S. Lamble May 2010
...about this sentence in the lead:
Which "movement of anti-revolutionary propaganda" was "sparked" by her death, which "ultimately led to the development and implementation of the Reign of Terror" ?
Where is the source for this & where is this 'fact' developed in the article?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This portrait attributed to Duplessis and (here and there) supposed te be the princess of Lamballe is wrong. First, it's not her face at all... But above all, NEVER a princess of such a high rank like she was (born princess of Savoy, by marriage 'princesse du sang' in France and member of the royal family) would have been painted with this plunging neckline, showing her nipples. Absolutely impossible... 2A01:E35:2E2F:5920:FC64:6B97:22DF:160 ( talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely impossible? Why? Have you ever seen portraits of that period of other noble women in a similar rank? I come from such an old French family and even among my female ancestors we have a lot of portraits with "such a plunging neckline". Look at portraits showing Marie Antoinette! I don't know what you mean. -- ReneSMdFA ( talk) 06:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
YES this is LouisPhilippeCharles but my real name is tom because that is a username and not a real person morons. I have reverted this page about 5/6/7 times due to the facts that a large amount of the info on the page is misleading incorrect and just embarressing to read due to the level of incompetence that people IE factstraight insist on putting in it. for one not SHE WAS ITALIAN BORN SO NOT M L THERESE BUT MARIA TERESA LUISA and carignano is a title AND NOT a name and therefore pretty much irrelevant bar the fact her father was the prince of C it amazes me that people regarding this princess have been soooooo painfully stupid childish and seem to think they have some sort of ownership over an article on an internet encyclopedia also her husband was a bourbon no more no less what is the issue with adding people paternal titles to names like Savoy and Bourbon it is just stupid beyond belief as well as greatly frustrating I AM HELPING NOT CAUSING A PROBLEM I AM CORRECTING INFORMATION NOT BEING A VANDAL but users such as factstraight are moronic, he is probably a middle aged balding married man with no job anyway. pathetic to be honest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.46.152 ( talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd ( talk · contribs) 15:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems good and well-sourced at first glance. Let the review begin!
Luxtay the
IInd (
talketh to me) 15:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This article fails the first two criteria—it fails 1a with inconsistent spelling, incredibly long paragraphs without any breaks, and the dialogue in the Death section being rather confusing. It fails 1b immediately as well; the templates at the article's beginning are sorted in violation of MOS:LEAD. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The sources in these articles are generally good, but the article automatically fails 2b because of the final statement in the Marriage section being unreferenced. Also, this isn't a rule, but the article also cites Hardy's 1908 work on her almost everywhere. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The article is often rambly, although it covers the important aspects of her life well. Not much else to comment on. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The images are very well-done and high quality and none of them violates any copyright laws; the article is subject to active editing, but not edit-warring; sadly, it has some bias in the later sections against the revolutionaries so it doesn't pass criteria 4. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The number hashes look weird now. Anyway, @ Dialuanny0, thank you for nominating this article. Sadly, it did not pass, and I invite you to fix the issues described in the review. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, this could be considered a quickfail because of violations of the neutral point of view policy (see quickfail rule 3). Statements such as "it was a frequent slander that the two had been lovers" and puffery like "enormous", "mocked", and "propaganda" disqualify this in my opinion. Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 18:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved to the proposed title. Alternative proposals may be raised as a new request. ( non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe →
Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy – Present title is unnecessarily long, in violation of
WP:CONCISE. The proposed title is also more
WP:CONSISTENT under the guideline of
WP:NCROY as most deceased royal women have article titles using their birth name. The proposed title is also a primary redirect, so there’s no ambiguity here.
estar8806 (
talk)
★ 02:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area.Her given name alone would not do this. The proposal also, incidentally, conflicts with WP:NCROY. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)