Talk:Moll Davis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moll Davis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Moll Davis was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 4, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

English Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moll Davis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialuanny0 and thank you for your work on this article. I'm going to have more detailed comments for you in the next couple of days, but I wanted to let you know about the most immediately visible needs so you can get started if you'd like. See the notes below, and please interpolate comments/questions line by line into my notes (or use Template:Done to mark the ones you've addressed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some fixable issues

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
MOS:LEAD is one of the major issues here. The lead is a long way away from being able to "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic".
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:

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:
Some in-line citations are to unreliable sources, including the blog History of Royal Women, the personal website Wrong Side of the Blanket, and the blog History in the (Re)Making. Other citations have issues including dead links and insufficient biobliographical info. For example, a quote in Early life is cited to "Pepys 1995" but no link or other info is given.

C. It contains no original research:
The verification issues make determining what might be OR challenging.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Some false positives in the Earwig report
Is it 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 (see summary style):
Too much info on the house in St. James's Square
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The verification issues make NPOV determination challenging.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am quick-failing this nomination, as there is a long way to go on fixing the above issues. I hope to see another nomination once the above have been addressed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year of daughter

This article states without immediate citation that Moll's daughter by Charles II, who became Lady Mary Tudor, and later still Countess of Derwentwater, was born in 1669. However, as the daughter's wiki biography bears out, she was born on 16 October 1673. The birthdates need checking. Was Moll reported by anone to have borne a child in 1669?Cloptonson (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]