Talk:Doomed Queen Anne

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems with the synopsis[edit]

The plot summary suffers from a number of problems. Chief among them is the utter lack of references. I guess people have just read the story and dumped their book reports here. The {{Unreferenced}} tag is appropriate, since the article's hardly reliable without some verifiable references.

But even that's not its biggest problem. The article's not even useful if the content is not readable. I stumbled in here and saw a few grammar errors I wanted to quickly fix, but when trying to improve the summary I realized I couldn't even discern the plot it was describing.

I think the incoherence of the summary stems, in part, from contributors inserting text and replacing or deleting other bits from previous edits, without completely reviewing the resulting text. Those who don't know the story won't have a clue. Like me.

Please, somebody (1) who has found actual references on the novel's plot, or, failing that, (2) somebody who has read the novel and can offer accurate details, or, in absence of such contributors, (3) somebody who knows Tudor history better than I, or as a last resort, (4) someone who's better at guessing than I am, please check the bold assumptions I made (based largely on the current and previous versions of this article and other WP research) and read the current plot summary. Do make any corrections as necessary or discuss my errors here. Best of all, of course, is if somebody rewrites the whole darned thing. JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "true facts" in the Historical Inaccuracy section[edit]

In the criticism of the novel's accuracy, these little factoids appear:

The first report of Anne Boleyn having any kind of deformity was brought up by Nicholas Sanders, fifty years after her death.

Problem: Sanders died only 45 years after Anne, according to WP's own articles. Is the arithmetic wrong here, or are some years documented incorrectly somewhere?

Sanders never met or saw her, being born after she had already died.

Problem: WP's Sanders article puts his birth at 1530; Anne's execution is documented as 1536. This sentence looks ripe for deletion, unless there are things I don't now (and there usually are...)

It would be great if whoever added this debunking (or somebody else who knows its source) could tweak or remove these arguments against the book's accuracy. Thanks. JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These facts also seem quite biased towards Anne and need to be re-written from a more neutral point of view.Wickedfan101 (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No great beauty[edit]

Anne is described as "having no great beauty" which is followed by (olive skin, dark hair, dark eyes). How do these physical traits preclude her having had beauty?! The article needs to state why those particular traits were considered unattractive in the 16th century as the modern reader won't understand why they are being presented as negative.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the King[edit]

I didn't realise people went on dates in the 16th century. nor dropped heavy hints of marriage. The wording needs to be changed, less slang needs to be employed; in fact, the entire article could greatly benefit from a major rewrite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]