Talk:Lady Henrietta Berkeley/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk · contribs) 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I will review this shortly Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, initial comments: Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the lead avoids mentioning Grey's name until right at the end, so it has to refer to him by various epithets ("her elder sister's husband", "her lover") instead. I think it would probably be clearer to refer to him as "her elder sister's husband, Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville on the initial mention, and then simply "Grey" thereafter.
 * In fact, on that note, he wasn't yet Earl of Tankerville at that point. Should he be referred to as "Ford Grey, Lord Grey of Werke" instead?
 * I think my rationale for not naming him in the first sentence was that all too often women are defined by their husbands/lovers but clarity is foremost so I also wouldn't mind to change it. On that note, yes he was Ford Grey, Lord Grey of Warke then became Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville later on so probably the former is better ... although nowadays he is known as Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville ... it's tricky with these changing titles. Mujinga (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in this case she does seem to be notable solely for her relationship with Grey! I do think putting his name upfront would make the lead read somewhat more clearly, though I see why you didn't initially.  I also think that we should call him Lord of Warke rather than Earl of Tankerville in the lead – changing titles are confusing either way, but I think they're more confusing used anachronistically. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've added Lord Grey of Warke to the first sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Her father, George Berkeley, 1st Earl of Berkeley, decided to prosecute her lover – in fact he didn't just decide, but did prosecute Grey!
 * true, changed to "sued" in lead and body Mujinga (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Berkeley was a virgin and an unmarried minor. – none of the sources cited in this paragraph seem to support "virgin", and I have no idea how we can possibly know that for a fact at a remove of several centuries.
 * good spot! it's in cobbett page 130 Mujinga (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh, court records? This is making my use of primary sources radar ping wildly.  I'd suggest either cutting "virgin" (secondary sources don't seem to report it, suggesting a possible due weight issue), or at least qualifying it with something like "reported in court to be" – I don't know that we should uncritically accept George Berkeley's claims that his daughter was Really Chaste and Innocent, I Swear, here! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, deleted the sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * she sent another sister (Lady Arabella) to check for evidence in Berkeley's room at Berkeley House (later Devonshire House) in London the source cited says Arabella checked "her sister's" (presumably Henrietta's) room.
 * Yes Berkeley here stands for Henrietta Berkeley. Is it not clear enough? Could change "sent another sister" to "sent her sister" Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This one's a failure of my reading comprehension – for some reason I had read "in Grey's room" where you (correctly!) write "in Berkeley's room". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The now pregnant Berkeley fled with him to the Netherlands in June – the DNB entry for Ford Grey says that she was pregnant, but the one for Henrietta herself merely says that she was "rumoured" to be pregnant.
 * oh yeah that's a good spot. hmmm. the bouchard source says "Henrietta was then said to have been 4 months pregnant and unwell: according to a lampoon at the time she subsequently ‘scap’t great danger at the birth of her child’ in Cleve." but I'd expect ODNB to be authoritative so I'm unsure what to do when the two entries are in conflict. could add "reportedly" and add the bouchard on that sentence? Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to change it to something like "Berkeley, reportedly pregnant, fled with him...", and cite it to the ODNB entry for Berkeley. You could add an endnote explaining that the ODNB says she was pregnant in its entry on Grey, but that she was rumoured to be pregnant in its entry on Berkeley if you think the discrepancy is worth discussing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool I've changed it to reportedly and added a footnote, since I think "reportedly" needs an explanation Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Caeciliusinhorto thanks for the careful reading. all comments answered, some with queries Mujinga (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking back at the GA criteria, you're basically fine on points 4-6 (neutrality, stability, images). Point 3 (broad in coverage) is fine – considering how little reliable sources say about Berkeley's life, you've managed to write a remarkably thorough article. I have one final concern regarding sourcing: the ODNB is obviously a reliable source of the highest quality. The other sources I am less sure of. Bayly is essentially a primary source and needs to be used with caution: see my comment above on that. Reynolds looks like a questionable source to me: it's super dated, which might be okay if it were by a historian, but he was apparently a journalist and penny dreadful author. It's probably okay to cite for Reynolds' opinion, but there is surely a better source for what Grey was actually charged with? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * yes the ODNB is def the authoritative source here, and I've added that to the court charge paragraph. so the only Thomas Bayly Howell ref is to the transcription itself and George William MacArthur Reynolds is being used for two flowery quotes. the first one probably could be cut on the grounds of being too flowery, the second one i think is a decent opinion to end the article Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all looks good. I'm not opposed to the quotes on principle – they give good colour to the article!  I just want to make sure we're not relying on sensational 19th century reportage for matters of actual fact.  I'm going to promote this now. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)