Talk:George Villiers (1759–1827)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Villiers (1759–1827)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• There are no images in the article. I've taken a quick look, but can't find any myself of Villiers himself (plenty of the Duke of Buckingham though!). While an article doesn't need images to meet GA criteria, as part of the ongoing development of the article, it would be appropriate to keep searching for suitable images as they can bring details to life, put information in context, and aid presentation which gives reassurance and enhances readability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Article clearly meets presentation and formatting criteria. Checking sources and content takes a little longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• What does "supporting the Ministry" mean? The source says that he was a Tory, but little else. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• There are some statements that give an opinion or are direct quotes, and so would benefit from close inline citing, even if a cite somewhere in the vicinity is serving as a source. Examples - "His political influence in Parliament was negligible..."; "Villiers, indeed, enjoyed considerable favor with the King..."; "He had, he said, turned down a pension of £1,200 p.a. for "reasons...which can never be publicly alluded to"". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Could the uses of job titles, such as "He appears to have taken little interest in his official duties both as Paymaster and Inspector-General" be checked with WP:Job titles, as most seem not in line with that guideline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• While I am able to verify some of the information, I am having difficulty with the bulk of it. The article appears to rely on House of Commons, 1790-1820, a book that is not available in my library, the relevant sections of which have not been scanned onto Amazon or GoogleBooks, and which costs a minimum of £80. If someone reading this is able to lay their hands on a copy, would they please scan a few of the relevant pages, and email them to me so I can complete this GAN. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On hold

The article reads nicely; it is informative, interesting and enjoyable. I don't envisage any problems with the material; however, in order to be listed as a Good Article I need to verify the sources used. I'm putting this on hold until someone is able to email me some relevant pages from the main source used - House of Commons, 1790-1820. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are only three pages needed - 405, 452 and 453. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So far: I've changed the bit about the ministry to just say "Tory", in line with the source. I think most of the capital letters are covered by this sentence in WP:Job titles: "The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun." I've tried to comb some out regardless. I will try to rework the sourcing so that a) I can give a link to the online text of Thorne's article and b) inline cites are closer in to the quotes. Choess (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the coverage - it seems fair, accurate and appropriate. Just waiting now for you to nudge me when you feel that the inline citations are OK so I can give them a once over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pass

This is an attractive, readable and informative piece on a little known courtier. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)