Talk:Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig finds no issues; sources are reliable. The article is very well-written and in excellent shape. Once these minor points are addressed I'll do some spotchecks on the sources and I expect to pass this easily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking to the first earl and his wife in the lead, at first mention. Similarly there are several other possible links in the lead.  This is not strictly a GA requirement, since MOS:LINK isn't part of the GA criteria, so this is just a suggestion.
 * "Three years after his death she married John Maitland and resumed her close connection to the restored court." Suggest giving her husband's death date at this point.
 * I think it would be worth saying in the lead what the purpose of the Sealed Knot was.
 * The phrase "unusual for women of the period" occurs twice in two paragraphs; suggest rephrasing one of them.
 * "Her mother took the opportunity to travel along the Thames to the court at Oxford, including the winter of 1643-44." Syntactically this doesn't work, since "including" ought to be followed by something related to the Oxford court, but why are we singling out this year in any case?
 * "a prudent choice given his lack of political involvement, but one that created a stable marriage": why "but"? There seems to be no contrast here.
 * "They had eleven children, five of whom survived to adulthood: Lionel Tollemache, 3rd Earl of Dysart, his eldest son, inherited the Earldom of Dysart on his mother's death in 1698." If we have "They" at the beginning, I think this has to be "their eldest son"; or you could make it "the Earl's eldest" or "Lionel's eldest", though that tends to imply he also had sons by other wives.
 * "even visited Europe on multiple occasions": I'm not sure we need "even" -- the reader doesn't have any reason to think this would be extraordinary.
 * "which also granted the ability for female heirs to inherit the title where no male heir existed": shouldn't this be "reaffirmed" rather than "granted", since she had already inherited the title herself? So presumably this was not a new condition?
 * "The infill of the southern face of the house enabled the creation of both royal chambers on the first floor, as well as separate apartments for the Duke and Duchess on the ground floor." Suggest "two" instead of "both", since these chambers haven't been mentioned up to this point.
 * I think the novels by Cripps and Seymour are only worth mentioning if another source discusses them -- e.g. if a history that discusses Elizabeth mentions them. Without a criterion like that it's hard to give a reason for not including every novel in which she appears as a character.
 * , are you planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Mike Christie apologies - the notification of your suggestions somehow went missing in my inbox! Yes, I will work through this list and will alert you when I have addressed these suggestions. Thank you so much for taking the time, I greatly appreciate it. Isaksenk (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Mike Christie I've made changes to the article based on your feedback, for everything except the final point, where I'd ask your advice. I've been a volunteer at Ham House for 13 years and I've had many guests exclaim, upon hearing some of the details of Elizabeth's story, that someone should really write a book about her! At which point I inform them that in fact there are two such books, which is why I included that in the art & literature section. Appreciate your guidance on how best to approach this. Thanks again for taking the time to review. Isaksenk (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's a policy or guideline that directly addresses this, but here's how I would look at it. For an article on a major historical figure, such as Lord Nelson, for example, there are certainly hundreds of works of fiction that could be mentioned that feature Nelson as a significant character.  The only way I can see to limit what is listed in an article like that is to require that the work of fiction is mentioned in a secondary source about Nelson.  If you look at the article on Nelson, the list of authors who've written fiction about him is sourced to a biography of Nelson rather than those works themselves.  I think that approach is best, because it prevents us from having to make a decision about whether a particular novel or play is worth mentioning.  Having said that, if you feel strongly that this is an asset to the article, I'm willing to pass this for GA with those novels still mentioned.  Up to you.
 * I'll do a few spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Mike Christie thanks for the guidance. Based on that, I'll keep the mention of the Cripps book, as it's a biography written by a well-respected local historian who was granted the rare privilege of access to the Tollemache family papers. And I'll remove the reference to the other book on your advice. I'll respond to the spot checks separately below, thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks
Footnote numbers refer to this version. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FN 4 cites "After his death in April 1682 Elizabeth entered into a legal dispute with her brother-in-law Lord Tweedale over her late husband's debts and funeral expenses." Verified, but the source has "He died at Tunbridge Wells on 24 August 1682 ...Elizabeth  ... plunged immediately into a long and bitter legal dispute with her brother-in-law over the payment of her husband's debts and his funeral expenses."  This is too closely paraphrased; see WP:PARAPHRASE.
 * FN 35 cites "The infill of the southern face of the house enabled the creation of a set of royal chambers on the first floor as well as separate apartments for the Duke and Duchess on the ground floor." I don't have access to this source; can you quote the supporting text?
 * FN 24 cites "Her title as Countess of Dysart was secured by the grant of new Letters Patent on 5 December 1670, which also reaffirmed the ability for female heirs to inherit the title where no male heir existed." I don't have access to this either; can you quote it?


 * Hi @Mike Christie, thanks for your efforts, here are my inputs:
 * Point 1 - I've rephrased the quoted text, and hope this is sufficiently differentiated?
 * That works; I think it could be further rephrased but that's just about enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Point 2 - Here's the quote from Rowell: "The Lauderdales' extensive remodelling of Ham was hailed by their contemporaries as both exceptionally splendid and sophisticated...The main addition from 1672 to 1676 was the cleverly managed transformation of Ham into a double-pile house, creating new apartments on the south front...At the either end of this enfilade, overlooking the formal garden on the south side, were the duke and duchess's private rooms..."
 * I don't think that supports "royal" chambers, does it? and I'm not sure what is might be infill -- if you mean that a gap in the frontage was converted to rooms, again I don't see this in the quote you give. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry @Mike Christie - I should have put the rest of the paragraph: "At the either end of this enfilade, overlooking the formal garden on the south side, were the duke and duchess's private rooms, with the black and white marble-floored Dining Room at the centre of the house. Upstairs was a State Bedroom constructed for Queen Catherine of Braganza,a personal friend of the duchess, who certainly "Dined there in 1674, soon after the royal apartment's completion." Isaksenk (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That certainly addresses "royal"; thanks. What about "infill"?  I think I just don't understand what you mean by that part of the sentence; can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, it's a bit more obvious when looking at the floor plan we put on the Ham House page. The original 1610 house was shaped like a capital H. The renovations of 1672 filled in the bottom gap of that H, so that the south front of the house has an unbroken range of rooms. I can take out the word infill and rephrase it for clarity if you think it best. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I figured it had to be something like that. The issue is that we need to be able to derive the article text from the source. How about adding, as sources, two plans of the house -- before and after?  They don't need to be images in the article, but as sources they allow us to say "infill". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Point 3 - thank you for finding a typo! The reference is on page 99, not 13, and is as follows: "She surrendered the Earldom of Dysart which she had inherited from her father and which had been conferred on William Murray in Oxford in 1643, and on 5th December, 1670 the King granted her new Letters Patent confirming her in the title of Countess of Dysart and Lady of Huntingtower. She was also given the right to nominate her heir from among her children and it was confirmed for all future generations that the title should pass through the female line where there was no male heir..."
 * Perfect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Isaksenk (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the second point is not properly supported; can you comment? Since the first one required rephrasing anyway, I'll do three more checks (spotchecks have to be clean, or very nearly so, for a GA to be promoted). Footnotes refer to this version. Again I don't have access to this; can you quote the supporting text? -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FN 14 cites "Elizabeth did not want a quiet domestic life and often based herself at her family home, Ham House near Richmond by the Thames after her mother's death in 1649."
 * FN 22 cites "In September 1658 one of her neighbours, Judith Isham, joked about her new title, writing that people "call her my Lady Dessert, she is soe takeing, expressing extraordinary sivility to every person"."
 * FN 36 cites "Shortly after the completion of the apartments, Elizabeth commissioned the creation of a bathroom in the basement of the home, one of the earliest in 17th century England."


 * Completely understood, and happy to comply with the requirements.
 * FN14 reference: "She [Catherine] died on the 2nd of August [1649, which is noted in a letter directly above this quote] at Ham and was buried at Petersham Church...Her mother's death placed fresh responsibilities on Elizabeth's shoulders, and meant a grievous blank in the lives of the three younger girls...Elizabeth kept them and Cousin Henderson close to her and succeeded...in retaining Ham House...
 * FN22 reference: "On 1 September 1658, her neighbour Judith Isham reported a sighting of Elizabeth to her father Sir Justinian, punning on Elizabeth's relatively new title of Countess of Dysart: The Lady Tolmach was in the countrey last week but …coming to take her leave for she is going into France for a long time…fearing a confusion she is now the Countes of Disere they call her my Lady of Dessert she is soe takeing, expressing extraordinary sivility to every person…"
 * FN36 reference: "...the Lauderdales were leaders of fashion and innovators in building...The duchess installed a 'Bathing Roome' in the basement, accessible via a staircase from her bedroom...it indicates the duchess's concern with personal hygiene, a virtue not often accorded to our ancestors but which was clearly very much part of civilised life at Ham House."
 * Isaksenk (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it perhaps the case that your detailed personal knowledge of the topic has bled into the sentences in the article? I think "did not want a quiet domestic life" is not really supported.  I think "earliest in 17th century England" is also not supported -- "a virtue not often accorded to our ancestors" speaks of our perceptions of 17th century people, not to the reality, and isn't directly about bathrooms anyway.  I do need to get a clean spotcheck before I can promote, so would it make sense for you to run through the article and just check that everything is fully supported by its citations? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mike ChristieYes, I agree it's best that I rewrite the article in order to stay within the strict limits of the documented sources. Unfortunately, I can only get access to some of them in the British Library and it will be several weeks until I'll have a day available to spend there. So, I suggest we fail/close/cancel this review for now. Thanks for your efforts and guidance. Isaksenk (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will do that. I'm disappointed; it's a fine article and I would have liked to promote it.  When you get a chance to check the citations and renominate, if you like, ping me and I'll do my best to pick it up for review quickly, so that you can avoid the (sometimes months-long) wait at GAN.  Plus having read it already I'd be able to review it very quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Failing per discussion above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mike Christie I was finally able to access all of the sources for the article and rechecked each reference. I've renominated the article for GA. Isaksenk (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I've just picked up the article for (re-)review and will try to get to it today or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)