Talk:Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:31, 3 May 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * Suggest changing "and became Groom of the Stole to the Prince of Wales, a position he would hold for the rest of his life, later in the year" to "and became Groom of the Stole to the Prince of Wales later in the year, a position he would hold for the rest of his life."
 * Done
 * Early military service:
 * Any other siblings? Second surviving implies that some didnt' survive...
 * It seems that there was an older brother who died, but the only mention of him ever comes about when some sources describe FitzRoy as second surviving. Other sources don't bother to mention the other brother at all. I've removed "surviving" so the text lines up with that in the lede, and to remove confusion.
 * "and his brother were given over" the implication is that it was his elder brother but perhaps it might be best to make clear. And did his mother remarry or not take any part in his life after this?
 * Clarified the brother statement. Biographies of FitzRoy do not mention his mother - it seems like she did remarry, but I'm not sure when.
 * "regimental rank" "army rank"?? This is obviously important but it's going to be opaque to most readers - needs some sort of explanation
 * Attempted to clarify in a note.
 * what'd he do after the disbanding of the 119th?
 * Nothing in particular is recorded. Most likely he was just on half pay; officers didn't necessarily need to actually be serving in or commanding anything to continue to be promoted or get paid!
 * Political career:
 * "Whig" can we have a precis of what this meant? Most Americans, if they have recollection of the word "Whig" will be from American history, which will not help them one bit with 18th-century British politics... heh.
 * Difficult to do so precisely I think, but have made an attempt.
 * "This was organised by the" what is "this" though - the election or the choice of constituency?
 * The election.
 * "secret-service pension" - again, this will confuse Americans - "secret service" is the bodyguards for the President ... heh.
 * Clarified with another note.
 * "spoke in parliament" I think you want "Parliament" here.
 * Done
 * Baron:
 * "began to operate more politically independently" suggest "began to operate more independently in politics"
 * Done
 * "Grafton chose to move to the opposition" suggest "Grafton moved to the opposition" as less clunky
 * Done
 * "For his support of North's policies FitzRoy was rewarded, being created" suggest "As a reward for his support of North's policies FitzRoy was created" instead
 * Done
 * "FitzRoy acted as an intermediary between he and his father" I think you mean "FitzRoy acted as an intermediary between the prince and his father"?
 * Done
 * Family:
 * I'd be more comfortable if the various children had citations attached to them to make it clear which sources support their various bits - I'm especially looking at the "incorrectly assumed to be an illegitimate child of George III" statement which is pretty clearly opinion and needs a citation
 * Spread the citations out across the list as required.
 * "Unknown son" reads very odd since they can't be unknown since we have birth dates for them. Do you mean "unnamed son"?
 * Yes; they were unknown children before I found a more detailed source
 * I did some copyediting, pleas make sure I didn't muck things up.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * 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) 15:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the review! I've responded to all your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Unknown son" reads very odd since they can't be unknown since we have birth dates for them. Do you mean "unnamed son"?
 * Yes; they were unknown children before I found a more detailed source
 * I did some copyediting, pleas make sure I didn't muck things up.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * 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) 15:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the review! I've responded to all your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)