Talk:Esther Acklom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

No Quick-fail issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I have personally found reading this article to be quite delightful - oh so gossipy! but referenced from scholarly/reliable sources. Well-done. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No issues with MOS. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
No original research found, references galore. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran a copyvio tool - no issues. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Stays focused/focussed on Esther Acklom. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No unnecessary details/uses summary style. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Dispassionate yet very readable. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Only one editor, so yes, very stable. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are all fine & copyright status look good. Can hardly believe there isn't a public-domain portrait of Acklom available *somewhere*... oh well. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of around 1900 there was an extant small portrait of her hanging in a stately home. I contacted the home, which is now a wedding venue, but it's not still there sadly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! That is awful. There just have to be portraits of her hanging around *somewhere*, maybe at the Althorp estate or in some collection...probably not clearly-labeled or perhaps somewhat forgotten. I mean, in her day, Esther Acklom Spencer was famous/infamous and her husband wore mourning for the rest of his life. He *had* to have some portrait of her hanging on a wall. Shearonink (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have made tentative contact with a very vague link to the Spencer family in the hope that I might be able to discover if they own one. Not holding out hope... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are relevant, have suitable captions. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Need to do one last deep-dive/careful read-through of the article but haven't seen any issues yet to forestall GA status. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe - A few last questions/issues:

Frances' brother in law,- this term should be Wikilinked to Sibling-in-law. BIL might be a phrase our worldwide readership could be unfamiliar with. Also, consider hyphenating the term per the WP article.

Done

Were Thomas Knox & Edmund Knox related? If so or if not, that should probably be made clear in the text.

I have linked Knox's name, having reread the source and determined who he was; they were brothers.

These are small matters, but once they are adjusted or you respond here, I will proceed with finishing up this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Thank you, I have responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]