Talk:Frances Duff/GA2

GA review

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

Nominator: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs) 22:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: Happy to be doing this review! I intend to get back to you on the first pass in the next day or so (life permitting, I've said the same for recent reviews and then taken a little longer.) Feel free to reach out here or on my talk page. Yours, chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll be traveling for the next few days, so feel free to take your time starting your review. Ruby2010 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

---

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   i. There are grammatical errors with semicolons and emdashes: e.g. in the sentence ...in the management of her properties; for instance..., the semicolon would read better as a colon as the following phrase is an explanation of the previous, thus they are not of 'equal rank'. Non-proper words should not be capitalized following clause-linking punctuation either. I have not been WP:BOLD and fixed them myself, as I can see an alternate solution: you can break these clauses into separate sentences, and re-marry them into the prose per your own writing style. If you would like me to take an edit pass myself, please let me know!

   ii. While it's not strictly under the GA guidelines, the article is MOS:UNDERLINKed, which I believe makes it harder to understand to a broad audience. Clear link opportunities like Seven Year's War, Colony of Jamaica in the lede, Mulatto and other racial terms, and so forth. Additionally, the article makes reference to existing race/gender rights conditions a number of times: it'd be great to link to pages expanding further upon the point, e.g. Free black people in Jamaica to the Family Background section, for Still, prospects were limited on the island for freed people of black descent, especially women.

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

   i. The lede makes the claim, Historians believe that Dalzell was the only 18th-century heiress of mixed-race ancestry to marry into the British aristocracy. This is not expanded upon in the Marriage section of the article; it's important that it's either cited in the lede or supported in the body. As this is one of the main factors of notability, it had really ought to be in the first sentence too. Also, 'historians believe' is a little WP:AWW; I would recommend naming the specific authors, or else citing a work that directly supports the claim that this is a popularly-held belief.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   Shortened-footnote style is used in the article; credit to the letter disambiguator to same-year publications. No typographical errors otherwise in the references.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Correct WP:TSI is well followed throughout the prose.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I was unable to perform a spot-check because I was unable to get access to the main sources of Kaufman and Newman, even via WP:LIBRARY or my general savviness. Per WP:SPOTCHECK, I'm going to need scans/sourcing/quotes for the citations, because they are so heavily referenced. Please feel free to contact me via email (see my signature) to get those to me.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   See C; because of the heavy use of Kaufman, I really need to confirm via spot-check that everything is above board.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Due to the aforementioned underlinking issue, I think the current state is too narrow as a result. Improving the number of links will further establish the current scope with needed context.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The article maintains good summary style: the section headings are respected and show responsible chronological order; word count is 2247 words, and stays reasonably focused on the topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Topics of institutionalized racism and misogyny are handled with NPOV.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   New page that has no evidence of an edit war.

6. 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:

   Image is from Commons with correct free use rationale.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Image is a protrait of the subject and thus relevant. I actually tracked down a higher resolution version of the image from the same author you originally sourced, and was approved for an overwrite -- hope that helps!

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Ruby2010: Feel free to address what I've flagged. Looking forwards to getting the sources. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)