Talk:Moll Davis/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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".

2. 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

3. 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

4. Is it neutral?

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

   The verification issues make NPOV determination challenging.

5. Is it stable?

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

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:

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

7. 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)

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)