Talk:Ann Smith (activist)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Ann Smith was described as a "a great fomentor of plots"? Source: "They accompanied him to Cleves to see another Scottish exile, Sir John Cochrane, and a government report at this time refers to Ann as 'a great fomentor of plots'" - https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/67257
  • ALT1:... that in the 1680s, Ann Smith was described as a "a great fomentor of plots"? Source: "They accompanied him to Cleves to see another Scottish exile, Sir John Cochrane, and a government report at this time refers to Ann as 'a great fomentor of plots'" - https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/67257

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mildred Hope Fisher Wood

Created by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 17:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thanks for creating this interesting and important article! By my reckoning it was moved to mainspace just under 7 days ago UTC, so I'm glad to get this review in under the wire. Sourcing looks good. (By my understanding of common practice cites in the lede aren't necessary? If they are, then maybe just drop in an extra reference there.) Any other sources besides ODNB and the thesis? Would be great to have some more open-access cites. Fine if not (I've been running through the ODNB-listed Women in Red myself and know that the answer is often "there is nothing else"). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hiya, cheers for the review. Yes it's like you said, cites aren't necessary but can be added if needed by consensus per MOS:CITELEAD so I'd rather leave it as it is, unless there's something specific. On sources, yes I did have a good look around and didn't find other sources unfortunately. I'm actually quite interested where she ended up but we only have information about her for those four years of her life. Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wasn't anything specific in the lede that I was looking for backup on, and completely get it re: other sources. All good from my perspective! Thanks for the MOS reference, btw; I was sure there was something out there but didn't know where it was. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ann Smith (activist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

THis looks interesting... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Refs:
  • Not required per se, but all the authors of the ODNB articles are known, so it would be best practices to give their names in the references.
    • agreed, done Mujinga (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • Suggest putting "rebel" before "9th Earl of Argyl"
    • done Mujinga (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Early life:
  • "and participating in the enterprise" - this isn't quite clear. Having read the source, I suggest "and involved in her husband's business, at one point suing to recover debts owed to it."
    • rephrased to cover the debt Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Political activisim:
  • Suggest giving the names of the various earls she met with
    • do you mean the earls already in the text, for example Arthur Forbes, 1st Earl of Granard" for "1st Earl of Granard"? If so, done. Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Yep thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Cochrane joined the conspirators." are they conspirators though... we haven't been told they are ... or that Smith is part of it yet.
    • oh yes i think they already are, for example it says above " Argyll had covert meetings with the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury in the summer of 1682 to discuss rebellion " and now they are making plans in 1683 Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Smith gave £1,000 to Monmouth " give an equivalent figure like for the money given to Argyll.
    • Done, not sure if I should do the £6,000 figure or if that would be unnecessary for readability Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, we should always give equivalent figures when possible.... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Makes sense, done Mujinga (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One bit from the ODNB might need inclusion - the fact that Argyll's pre-execution letter to Smith was twice as long as his to his wife, and that he appears to have regreted that her activity had been brought up in his trial.
    • I've added the apology Mujinga (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. 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. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: thanks for the careful reading, I've answered all the points and queried a couple of things Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)