Talk:Mary II of England

Review

I'm afraid this sounds rather annoying because I'm your little sister (:P), but I reviewed it a bit. Here are some tiny mistakes I've desperately managed to find out:

• Undo the wikts as much as possible and try your best to link them to a real article. Even though that sounds pretty hard, maybe instead of linking them to an article inside Simple, you can just simplify the words.

 Done I've simplified it further, and tried not to link complex words to wiktionary. Words like annul and legitimate, though, there isn't much choice but to link to wiktionary. :) Classical Esther^♣ 02:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fill in some of the red links, please. I admit I sound picky, but red links aren't approved of. But, still, you filled in a lot of them already! Good work!

 Done The red links are down to one. Classical Esther^♣ 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Though she shared the post with her husband, she largely exercised its power alone. What does this mean? It may be that my brain is just a bit weird, but I should be able to read it! Please simplify this.

 Done All the words in the sentence are simple. :) However, I've reworded it to make it (hopefully) easier to understand. Cheers, Classical Esther^♣ 02:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• She fired and put in prison John Churchill, 1st Earl of Marlborough These people should be linked, or an article should be created about them.

 Done Not all the people in the article have to have their own articles necessarily created, but as John Churchill is pretty important, I've created an article about him and linked his name. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Classical Esther^♣ 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• The same with the section of "In film and television". Lisa Daniely, Sarah Crowden Rebecca Front Victoria Wood, should all be linked, not bolded. Also The Bishop of London, Henry Compton, should be linked as well.

Not done: the English article bolded the actresses, and I think it's correct to do so. I will, however, try to find time to create articles about them. Classical Esther^♣ 02:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)\

I'm sorry, but I think I'll leave them unlinked for now. Sarah Crowden isn't linked in the en article, and I don't think the others are famous enough to fit into Simple's scope just now. Classical Esther^♣ 02:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I have to go to bed now! I promise and assure you I will pester you with these annoying little reviews tomorrow, again, but I'm sorry for writing so badly. I don't think these are mistakes at all, just things I picked out to try to look smart. :p Well, be braced for another obnoxious review tomorrow! ♥ Belinda ♥ 13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work on it. I'm afraid I don't have anything more to nitpick about. Thx! ♥ Belinda ♥ 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some quick comments

• I am a bit confused by the use of the title numbers in the links. For example it would be easier to call James, James II of England, and let people follow the link to see that he was also James VII of Scotland as well. To call him James II and VII seems clumsy.
• Same comment for William III.

I will add more soon. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, Peterdownunder! :) I'm not sure why it's written like that either, but in the FA en article, it was written thus, so I kept it the same. Do you think I should change it around the way you suggested? --Classicalina|^talk_tea 09:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems strange to me, maybe someone who understands royalty could explain it better. --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, per the 1707 Act of Union, the nations of Scotland and England merged under the English crown (very simplistically put). Before 1707, the monarchs of Scotland had their own numeric system separate from the English one. When James I of England came to the throne in 1603, he continued to use his "James VI of Scotland", but also inherited "James of England" (the first monarch to use a name is not generally given a numeral, which is why you simply have "Queen Victoria", "Queen Anne", etc). So both James I and James II use VI/VII of Scotland and I/II of England, but generally, the English one is most commonly referred to. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Over all, this article is very nicely written. I could not find anything major to comment on. However, there were just two things I found that should be fixed:

• Through this, he hoped to make England friends with with Catholic France. I believe that there should be only one "with"

 Done Thank you for pointing that out! :) --Classicalina|^talk_tea 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ref numbers 8, 16, and 18 have the dates linked. These dates should not be linked, as these dates are not important to the reader

They seem to be automatically linked because of the citing encyclopedia template, so I don't think I can change that. --Classicalina|^talk_tea 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it. Great work on the article! Megan|^talk_changes 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the excellent comments, Megan! They were very helpful. Providence guide, --Classicalina|^talk_tea 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)