Talk:Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seattle (talk · contribs) 23:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I will review this soon. Seattle (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• No DAB links, no dead links

• Files check out in terms of copyright

• She was born the younger daughter of William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire by his famous wife, the political hostess Lady Georgiana Spencer. "the younger daughter" younger is comparative; younger to whom?; "famous" is a WP:PEACOCK term.

• If you could email me a copy of "Surtees 2004" and "Reynolds 2004" before I continue, that would be great. Seattle (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking this one on! I've emailed you the ODNB entries (let me know if you didn't get them). I've also removed "younger" and "famous" from the lead (although her mother is probably one of the most famous persons of her day, male or female! And it is cited in the article body...). Let me know if there is anything else. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My major problem with the article is that it seems to present what appear to be opinions as facts. Take, for instance, the following sentence: Harriet was slightly plump in appearance, with a clever, funny, and perceptive personality, and compare it to the following sentence: Her biographer, Virginia Surtees, writes that although Harriet .... The first gives what appear to be opinions as facts, while the second describes what someone described Leveson-Gower to be. See WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT. The second is fine; the first is not. Another: "Her family later encouraged a match with another cousin John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, though it turned out that he was more interested in hunting than in her." a more neutral wording would yield: "though, during her stay at Althorp, she stated that "no reasonable woman" could think of him as anything "but as an eager huntsman". I haven't read the rest of the article, but if it's written as the first bit, we're in trouble.

Note: this comes from a deep ignorance of royalty-related articles on Wikipedia, and I could be missing some policy on such works... I also assume it's difficult to write these articles because the subject has done almost nothing of note other than be born into royalty, and thus it's difficult to summarize personalities without the repetitious "x described Leveson-Gower as y".

As I'm reading other royalty FAs, they're written in a similar fashion but were promoted in the 2007–2009 range. Thoughts? Seattle (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies with the late response. RL has called me away recently -- will work on addressing your comment by Monday, hopefully. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 07:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing. I think when writing this article I unconsciously tended to mimic the editorial voice of several of the main sources (Gleeson in particular -- while undoubtedly reliable, her writing style does tend to take a rather intimate view of the various historical personages). Reading the article again, I do see that attribution could be tightened (to make clear whose opinion is being told, especially on such subjective matters as her appearance). I've thus made the attribution clearer for her appearance and used your wording for the Althorp content. I did another read through and don't see any similar issues, but let me know if you do.

The subject of this article, by the way, is not royalty. :) But yes, it can be difficult to find enough content without delving into "who married who" or using quoted descriptions! Subjects of this period, particularly women, are especially difficult because all we really know are important births and deaths, and occasionally more due to the period's penchant for letter writing. And with the latter form, the "facts" are then largely sourced to subjective opinions expressed during the time period. So it can be hard to write an article like this without saying "[person 1] said this" or [person 2 describes her as this]". Hopefully I found enough of a balance but please let me know if you think it could use some more tightening. She was an interesting subject to write about. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 01:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will finish the review on Sunday. Seattle (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK.

• In the "Family and early life" section use her last name instead of her first per WP:SURNAME. WP:SURNAME allows royalty to be called differently but apparently she's not royalty.

• Lord Granville had been Henrietta's own lover by now for seventeen years; indeed, she had borne him two illegitimate children during their relationship and was to declare that she "loved him to idolatry." Nevertheless, Henrietta encouraged her niece to consider marriage with the thirty-seven-year-old Granville. We don't need "indeed". Instead of "was to declare" why not just "declared"?

• Does Henrietta have a last name?

• Lord Granville died in early 1846, having never recovered from his illness when did he get an illness?

• I would like to ask for a second opinion when you respond to these comments to ensure that no OR or peacockery has occurred in the article. Seattle (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll write my GA-review opinion shortly per request from the GA-reviewer. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

1. "She was born the daughter" - consider adding "as" in-between "born" and "the".

• Tweaked. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Infobox does not mention alma mater, burial place, nationality, or her nickname.

Why would it need to? Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

3. How can you be an infamous political hostess and leader of fashion, are we sure this is correct?

Well she certainly had a reputation, in many circles with a negative connotation. As with the lead, however, I will just remove "infamous/famous" as this term seems to attract criticism more frequently. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

4. "The historian Janet Gleeson describes Cavendish as slightly plump in appearance, in possession of a clever, funny, and perceptive personality. Her biographer, Virginia Surtees, writes that although Cavendish was "no beauty, she had wit, intelligence, and shrewdness; her sharp eye missed little but in high croak and spirits viewed with tolerance the world of drums, dandies, gossip, and matchmaking in which she moved." - this might be something for a personal life section unless it's supposed to describe how she was in childhood as it's currently under that section. But this is just a suggestion.

I placed it there since the section is discussing her personally (her family, personality, and other traits). I like that the reader gets a description of her as she approaches adulthood (since the immediate next paragraph jumps into potential suitors). Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

5. "Though still infatuated with him, she knew that Granville would need to eventually marry and produce legitimate offspring, and that when he did so, she would likely lose him. Getting her niece to marry him was one way of keeping him within her circle" - whole lot is un-sourced.

Will work on finding a source for this (I know there was one but I forgot to add it). Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Done. Ruby 2010/2013 03:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

6. "Now however, she came to appreciate Granville's finer qualities: historians describe him as handsome, intelligent, of good family, and a member of the British parliament" - this is fine and all but the ":" should be replaced with ";".

Tweaked. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

7. "(in) high degree the charm of voice and manner which belongs to the Cavendish family" - the "()" should be replaced with "[]".

Tweaked. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

8. "The couple had four further children" - when followed by the previous Susan-was-born-in-1810-in-London sentence it should be changed to something like, "the couple would go on to have four children" or "the couple would have a total of four children".

Tweaked. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

8. "She survived her husband by fifteen years, dying on 25 November 1862 of a stroke at her London home at 13 Hereford Street" - might considered adding a word or two about the irony that they both died of stroke. Something like, "She survived her husband by fifteen years, ironically also dying of a stroke at her Home in London the 25 November". This is also just a suggestion.

It is ironic (!) but I'm afraid injecting the term would be a bit OR (and would be infusing personal opinion rather than objective fact!). Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

9. Why is the last section entitled "Issue"?

"Issue" is a formal term when discussing the genealogy of a person. See Issue (legal) for more information. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Verifiable with no original research

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. it contains no original research

The sources used in this article is very acceptable and meet the GA-criteria, but might considered finding the ISBN numbers to those who do know show it and instead of simply adding "9781403966056" add it correctly, like this "978-14-0-396-6-0-56". Other than that, I don't see any problems with the sources.

Tweaked ISBNs. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

It defiantly doesn't go into unnecessary detail and stays firmly on topic, but reading it thoroughly through, and noticing the length of the article, one start to wonder if it has the comprehensiveness required by the GA-criteria. It seems only to cover small parts of her childhood and love/wedlock life. One could improve this by creating one or two more sections and move information was other parts of this article into those. I'm sure you get the idea.

• Neutral

a. it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

There is hardly any controversial or touchy subjects in this article and is fairly perfect in terms of neutrality.

• Stable

a. it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

There is not much (none) discussions on talk page and is not the subject of ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated

a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

This article contains two large pictures. For the length of the article, it seems just fine.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

My second opinion on this GA-review would be to put the article on hold. The article still needs work to match up to the GA-criteria, but I don't think it misses enough to fail. Fix the ISBN problems and considered the points made by both the GA-reviewer and my second opinion. Hope this helps, guys. Peace out. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And Seattle, regarding the WP:PEACOCK issue, I wouldn't worry about too much. My definition of peacock is more "awesome, legendary, the greatest, unique, exceptional" and so on. To make it sound more humble and non-peacock, simply considered switching "famous" with "well known" or "notable". Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all but one of your suggestions (and will post here when I've resolved the remaining point). Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ruby2010, I agree, the article is improved and defiantly match up to the GA-criteria. I didn't recognize the problem or issue with WP:PEACOCK in the first place, seems rather like a small problem, if problem at all. However, it appears the actualy GA-reviwer is somewhat ... inactive in the latest discussions and maybe not on Wikipedia at the moment. It's over a month ago that this article's GA-review began. According to WP:GA, the reviewing process should not take more than a week. An untraditional intervention is maybe needed. Thoughts? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No, an "untraditional intervention" isn't needed because I couldn't respond within three days. Thanks anyway. Seattle (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try pinging @Seattle: to see if he has time to return and complete his review. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 03:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Passing. Seattle (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)