Talk:Lettice Knollys/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

{{{overcom}}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. There are a number of clarify and citation required tags I added that need looking at

 Done

1. Lettice Knollys links to 2 different disambiguation pages Sir Francis Knollys (redirect page), Francis Knollys and United Provinces

 Done

1. While alt text is no longer required it could be added
2. When Walter Devereux returned to England in December 1575, the Spanish agent in London, Antonio de Guaras, reported: If this is a block quote why so many references one would suffice at the end or should the quote end at reference 13 ?

 Done This was some automatized error; "/blockquote" was missing at the end.

1. A lot of the language used is of the day but as its taken from source material its not a problem.
2. Reference 3 Adams 2008a, 43 Adams 2008b, 47 Hammer 2008, 58 Adams 2008c and 61 Slater 2007 are internet references and should use the cite web template.

By my last GA reviewer I was specifically told to use short citations also for web citations. WP:CITESHORT says this is also o.k. with Internet sources that have no page numbers. Since I do everything manually, I am generally not keen on using cite templates (especially for books). Would you like to have the web template in the references section or in the inline text?

1. A lot of double and triple references are used and its not clear why (some by myself using ref name) but the extreme example is in the Litigation and old age section there are five references for At all times, Lettice Knollys cared for her siblings, children, and grandchildren. Until their respective deaths in 1607 and 1619, her daughters Penelope and Dorothy were her closest companions do all five cover different points ? or are they just duplicate refs if so some can be deleted the two web based would be best

 Done. I reworded and moved three citations behind "siblings, children, and grandchildren". This is a special case: Although all sources specifically say she cared for them, they say so for different classes of relatives separately, and at several stations throughout her life. I thought it best to summarize this point somewhere in the article.

1. There are numerous other examples where ref 3 Adams 200Oa is used alongside a book ref if this is to cover some point fine but it could be moved to that point to make it clearer. If not suggest the web ref is deleted and the book ref will suffice. Unless there is some doubt or contradiction with the book ref then that should be made clear.

 Done. In 98% of the cases still remaining this is in fact to cover some point; in many cases these are minor, even tiny, things like a month/year or a location. In two cases it's because I quoted from a primary source, but the meaning is the same as in the cited secondary source (where these quotes also figure).

1. All the citations should have the year following as ref 7 Hammer 1999 p. 22

 Done

1. In the bibliography books need publishing locations

 Done

Thank you! Buchraeumer (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some to be going on with, I will return later. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Passed GA Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Buchraeumer (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)