Talk:Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "His ministers," - confirm that you mean Peter's ministers, not Cosimo's
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "As a matter of fact" - this is better phrased as "In fact"
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk)
 * "Cosimo III willed to" - does this mean "wished to"?
 * Yes. I understand how my usage is somwhat archaic. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "bringing with him" - you mean "taking with him"
 * Yes. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "His widow returned to Florence in October 1717" - it took me a minute to remember that she was the subject of the article, given how much of the previous section was devoted to the succession - I suggest naming her at this point.
 * Sure! No problem. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the midst of this, Marguerite-Louise died" - again, it has been so long since she was mentioned that I'd forgotten who she was and had to check back - mention that she was Anna Maria's mother here.
 * Fixed.
 * "on Saint John the Baptist's day in 1729" - its not really relevant to link to St John the Baptist here, since it has nothing to do with him other than being on a day named after him. If the day has an article then that could be linked, but otherwise delink here.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk)
 * "breathed her last" - simply "died" is a better term here, although it would be further improved if you knew what she died of (syphilis?)
 * Fixed. Several authors ascribe her demise to a "chill"; however, Acton does say "oppression on the breast". -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In reference 16, the writing should not be all in capitals, even if the original source is.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This should also be done for reference one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "Marguerite-Louise took every chance to humiliate Cosimo" - can you give an example to assist the reader understand in what manner this occurred?
 * Sure. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Palatinate she arrived in was ravaged by the Nine Years' War" - clarify whether this was was ongoing or had just finished.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How did her syphilis affect her during the rest of her life?
 * Unresolved. To be honest, I have not the slightest idea. All I do know is that for fear of people learning of her syphilitic womb, she asked not to be embalmed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "the "Tuscan question" became dormant" - how can it have become dormant when you discuss it in the next paragraph?
 * Oops! Some years elapsed between the initial talks and Francesco Maria's marriage. I have fixed it a follows: "Some years later, as the the question of the succession became more dire..." Shall this suffice? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "if he chose promptly but reneged" - he was promised something if he reneged on his original promise? This doesn't quite make sense here.
 * Oops! I see. Fixed.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * The images are a little messy on my browser. I'd move the one of her in mourning across the page to the other side, which might allieviate some of the crowding.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * "£4,000 per month" is that in English pounds? If so, consider using the Template:Inflation
 * This article uses a lot of uncommon words, especially "peregrinate", and I am concerned that it would be struggle for the average reader who wold find it inaccessible. I recommend reassessing some of the language and finding more common alternatives. This is not essential for GA and I'm normally against any form of "dumbing down", but I've never seen such complicated language in a non-scientific wikipedia article before.

Thank you so much for reviewing the article, Jackyd101. You're one of the nicest reviewers I've come accros! I have taken on board your reccomendations and intend to implement them A.S.A.P. Thanks again, -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, and fast too! I'm happy to pass this now, I think it is a very fine piece and I look forward to reading and possibly reviewing more of your articles in the future (and may I say how sorry I am that it took so long for the article to be reviewed).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And it's no problem! -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent article, Jack. Congratulations!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article passes the requirements for GA. It's well done, well-presented, and highly informative with good references to back up the facts. All of the florid prose has been removed, however, I replaced member in the lead with the original scion which I have linked. Scion sounds more professional and erudite than member. I say full steam ahead with giving it GA status.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I passed it for GA three weeks ago (see the talk page). Since then it has been to FAC and back, where it suffered due to the Christmas slow down and did not pass (although I recommend another try). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)