Louise Lehzen has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 9, 2017, September 9, 2020, September 9, 2022, and October 3, 2023. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Grave of Louise Lehzen be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Lower Saxony may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This work needs citations. I could not find any reference to the details (shown with {{ Fact}} tags) listed here in the ODNB. Most of it appears to be a running commentary of the films "Victoria and Albert" and " Edward the King". PeterSymonds 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing "occaisional" a/b Victoria's responses to Lehzen. Catholic monarchist 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Theres an image here - http://www.btinternet.com/~sbishop100/ - would this be copyright expired, and useful for the article? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Louise Lehzen. Jafeluv ( talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Baroness Louise Lehzen → Louise Lehzen — As she was created a baroness herself (rather than owing her title to her parentage) I believe the correct form would be Louise, Baroness Lehzen - rather ugly as an article title, in my opinion. I think the most straightforward article title would just be her first name and surname, as it was originally; see also WP:COMMONNAME. The article was moved to include "Baroness" on 12 January 2009 "per naming conventions", but I can't find anything in WP:NCP or WP:NCROY to support this. Opera hat ( talk) 11:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are:
I think Louise Lehzen is really the best option. Opera hat ( talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jarry1250 ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Before I perform a full review, there are some image licensing queries to clear up:
Note from the prose (virtually all of a very strong standard IMHO):
I have made a number of copyedits, mostly for POV, which you should probably look over to make sure I haven't changed the sense.
Otherwise, looking good :) - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ought not the title of the article to be corrected? "Baroness Lehzen" or "Louise Lehzen" is correct; "Baroness Louise Lehzen" is a form unknown to Burke, Debrett, the London Gazette and the Court Circular (see, e.g., The Times, 9 November 1829, p. 2). I don't think you can plausibly have a Good Article with an inaccurate title. Tim riley ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jarry! You've been a very helpful reviewer, and really aided in improving the article. Warm regards, Ruby 2010/ 2013 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The article includes the following sentence:
What is the sic for? It usually represents a spelling or grammatical error that has been faithfully reproduced in the quote but I can't see anything wrong there. Road Wizard ( talk) 23:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The article says she entered the household of Princess Victoria in Dec. 1819, yet a few sentences later, it says she and the whole family were moved to England in 1817. Well, she couldn't have moved to England with the family two years BEFORE she went to work for them!
Louise Lehzen has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 9, 2017, September 9, 2020, September 9, 2022, and October 3, 2023. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Grave of Louise Lehzen be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Lower Saxony may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This work needs citations. I could not find any reference to the details (shown with {{ Fact}} tags) listed here in the ODNB. Most of it appears to be a running commentary of the films "Victoria and Albert" and " Edward the King". PeterSymonds 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing "occaisional" a/b Victoria's responses to Lehzen. Catholic monarchist 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Theres an image here - http://www.btinternet.com/~sbishop100/ - would this be copyright expired, and useful for the article? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Louise Lehzen. Jafeluv ( talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Baroness Louise Lehzen → Louise Lehzen — As she was created a baroness herself (rather than owing her title to her parentage) I believe the correct form would be Louise, Baroness Lehzen - rather ugly as an article title, in my opinion. I think the most straightforward article title would just be her first name and surname, as it was originally; see also WP:COMMONNAME. The article was moved to include "Baroness" on 12 January 2009 "per naming conventions", but I can't find anything in WP:NCP or WP:NCROY to support this. Opera hat ( talk) 11:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are:
I think Louise Lehzen is really the best option. Opera hat ( talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jarry1250 ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Before I perform a full review, there are some image licensing queries to clear up:
Note from the prose (virtually all of a very strong standard IMHO):
I have made a number of copyedits, mostly for POV, which you should probably look over to make sure I haven't changed the sense.
Otherwise, looking good :) - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ought not the title of the article to be corrected? "Baroness Lehzen" or "Louise Lehzen" is correct; "Baroness Louise Lehzen" is a form unknown to Burke, Debrett, the London Gazette and the Court Circular (see, e.g., The Times, 9 November 1829, p. 2). I don't think you can plausibly have a Good Article with an inaccurate title. Tim riley ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jarry! You've been a very helpful reviewer, and really aided in improving the article. Warm regards, Ruby 2010/ 2013 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The article includes the following sentence:
What is the sic for? It usually represents a spelling or grammatical error that has been faithfully reproduced in the quote but I can't see anything wrong there. Road Wizard ( talk) 23:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The article says she entered the household of Princess Victoria in Dec. 1819, yet a few sentences later, it says she and the whole family were moved to England in 1817. Well, she couldn't have moved to England with the family two years BEFORE she went to work for them!