Talk:John Conroy/GA1

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

Reviewer: BrianDeeG (talk · contribs) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I intend to review this article but please note I am new to the process. --Brian (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for reviewing. I would happy to answer any questions about the article or the review process, either here or on my talk page. Also, this article on the Good article criteria could be helpful. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ruby. --Brian (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Quickfail" criteria
I decided to check these first although an initial scan of the article strongly suggests that it is well-written and has been subject to care with no obvious problems:
 * 1) Verifiability – has extensive bibliography and use of inline citations
 * 2) Neutrality – definitely complies with NPOV
 * 3) Cleanup banners and tags – none
 * 4) Edit wars – none
 * 5) Current event – n/a
 * 6) Paraphrasing or copyright – nothing; quotations are used correctly with citations and seem to be relevant

Therefore, the article passes this preliminary stage and I will commence a detailed review based on the main GAC. --Brian (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions and comments
1. A general comment has to be the overuse of commas, especially preceding "and". The article should comply with English as used in GB and this use of commas is not practiced here. Comma usage has been addressed in review copyediting. Another point is overuse of "however".
 * I personally favor the serial comma, but removed them in compliance with British spelling.  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Any information in sources about why he chose a military career (still only 16) given that his father was in law? Why did he not go to uni?
 * There isn't a whole lot about his early life. I added everything I could find. Maybe because he was one of five sons, he saw a military career as the easiest route?  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

3. "The Duchess prevented her daughter from attending William's coronation out of a disagreement of precedence". Need an explanation of "out of a disagreement of precedence". Can another term be substituted?
 * I added a note about this but left the sentence unchanged ("disagreement of precedence" seemed like the shortest way to explain).  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

4. "As the years grew closer to Victoria's succession, William enjoyed bragging of his good health; aware that a regency was becoming unlikely, Conroy and the Duchess began promoting the view of Victoria as a "weak-minded, frivolous, and foolish" girl in need of guidance. I don't think William's boast is relevant and in any case needs a direct citation. I would remove that clause. A citation is needed re the quotation about Victoria. The sentence needs revision.
 * I removed the "good health" sentence and added a citation (note that everything in the article is cited - the proper citation was in the next sentence).  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

5. "While increasing their bullying of the princess, they at the same time implied that Victoria desired a regency even if she succeeded later than her majority at eighteen". The phrase "they at the same time" is poor English and this sentence needs to be revised to improve its construction.
 * I deleted the phrase.  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

6. "The Duchess and Conroy unsuccessfully tried to exploit her weakened state into signing a document appointing him personal secretary upon her ascension as queen". The sentence does not convey clear meaning, especially "tried to exploit her weakened state into signing a document". Construction needs to be revised.
 * I split the sentence into two, which hopefully makes it easier to read. I'm unsure how the meaning was unclear though.  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

7. "Conroy was the subject of numerous discussions Victoria had with Stockmar on the first day of her reign". A citation is needed as this information is isolated from the foregoing and following sentences.
 * Done.  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

8. "This scandal, in tandem with the Bedchamber Crisis, hurt Victoria in the public image". The latter part of the sentence ("hurt Victoria in the public image") needs to be rephrased. Something along the lines of "damaged Victoria's reputation".
 * Done.  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

These questions arise from an initial in-depth read of the article, mainly designed to check criterion 1 that it is well-written. I've made numerous small changes as copyedits while the proposed changes above may depend on source content. If you can address each of these points as the next stage, I'll be happy to continue with the review and provide comments for each of the criteria. --Brian (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and copy edit. I will get working at these suggestions soon (unfortunately cannot right now, as I am about to drive five hours to visit family).  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Ruby. Have a safe journey and a good weekend. --Brian (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied to all your comments. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In-depth review criteria
1. Well-written:

(a) good prose with correct spelling and grammar – very well-written with the result that the article is educational and an interesting read

(b) complies with MOS guidelines for:
 * lead sections – yes
 * layout – yes
 * words to watch – no problem
 * fiction – n/a
 * list incorporation – n/a

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) notes and references sections – well laid out with several sources listed

(b) inline citations – extensive use

(c) no original research – none that I can see: everything verified

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) addresses main aspects of topic – I have some knowledge of the subject having read the A. N. Wilson book and through an interest in this period of British history and I am certain that the coverage is ample

(b) stays focused on topic without unnecessary detail – yes; summary style adopted

4. Neutrality – good; objective approach

5. Stability – no problems

6. Images are relevant and respect copyright – they do; and they add a lot of value to the article

Summary
The questions I raised earlier were geared more towards making it into a very good article as one or two phrases were a little ambiguous. This is an excellent piece of work and I'm pleased to raise it to GA status. --Brian (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and taking the time to review!  Ruby  2010/  2013  19:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)