Talk:Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield

GA-Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Very well written. Could use an a few images, and a succession box. Otherwise, fantastic job. MrPrada 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, kindly. I've searched high and low for other images (most of which were created by van Dyck) but to no avail. If I may, the succession box isn't needed as she was a life peer. Thanks again, Craigy (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. There are a few minor problems with the article which should be addressed however. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All web sources should have publication information and last access dates. These are currently missing for some sources.
 * More context would aid comprehension. At the moment, the article tells the story of the Countess but does not mention contemporary events as they are happening very clearly. As a result, the text can sometimes jump surprisingly.
 * Some references come in the middle of sentances. These should always come after punctuation.
 * I've addressed your first and third issues, but didn't want to approach the second, so hopefully someone can give it a shot. Craigy (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
This article was created with material very closely paraphrased from the source and remains derivative of that work.

Consider the following:


 * Example 1
 * At its creation, the article said:


 * The 2004 ODNB says:


 * The article currently says:


 * Example 2
 * At its creation, the article said:


 * The ODNB says:


 * The current article says:


 * Example 3
 * At creation, the article said:


 * The ODNB says:


 * The article currently says:

I have not closely compared all of the remaining text. I believe these examples reflect clear copyright concerns. In addition, the material follows very closely in structure on the original. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With so many other inline references and sources it seems to me this is more a candidate for rescue rather than outright deletion. I don't have access to the ONDB to see what might be necessary to remove unless the above examples are in fact all that need fixing. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that's not it. I picked out three passages more or less randomly. I can do a more thorough review to make sure (this is one of the several thousand articles up at this CCI, but its GA status makes the extra time worth it), but the history here makes it likely that in its entirely the article is an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted source that will need to be rewritten from scratch. I hope that interested contributors will be able to rewrite this article. We've already lost a couple of notable subjects due to this, and there will probably be more in the pipeline. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm transcribing a very badly scanned DNB entry on wikisource atm, I'll rebuild a stub based on this one a bit later. MLauba (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - rewritten as a start class based largely on the DNB entry, article status demoted to Start class accordingly. With regret, might I add. MLauba (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shared. :/ Thank you very much for salvaging the article, at least. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)