Talk:Lettice Knollys/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I've simplified some sentences.
 * I've simplified some sentences.


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * I used the online edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Biography, which has no page numbers. Following earlier advice by the same reviewer, I abridged web citations, with full details in the References section.
 * Lettice Knollys hasn't a biography dedicated to her; the only treatment specifically on herself is the ODNB entry by Dr. Simon Adams, whose works are, on the whole, by far the most reliable in the sense of Wikipedia or any other sense. Lettice figures in biographies of her daughter Penelope, and less so in those of Leicester and Essex. I could technically change some of the Adams citations to more market-oriented and more outdated works; but I don't see the point as regards WP's policies. Furthermore, the GA criteria do not preclude articles with even one or two sources, as long as they are reliable.
 * I used the online edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Biography, which has no page numbers. Following earlier advice by the same reviewer, I abridged web citations, with full details in the References section.
 * Lettice Knollys hasn't a biography dedicated to her; the only treatment specifically on herself is the ODNB entry by Dr. Simon Adams, whose works are, on the whole, by far the most reliable in the sense of Wikipedia or any other sense. Lettice figures in biographies of her daughter Penelope, and less so in those of Leicester and Essex. I could technically change some of the Adams citations to more market-oriented and more outdated works; but I don't see the point as regards WP's policies. Furthermore, the GA criteria do not preclude articles with even one or two sources, as long as they are reliable.


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:


 * I have sourced this now to Lacey's Essex biography, p. 15: "For Queen Elizabeth hated Lettice Devereux bitterly, and it was all because of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester." There are many similar expressions in other books. I'd also contend that if you are repeatedly called a whore by someone (even before ambassadors and your son) this is akin to hatred. The "undying" means it never went away, which I hope appears from the article. Of course there are more instances of this than those mentioned in the article, but I'd think it becomes clear even so that Lady Leicester could hardly move around or show herself without triggering an eruption of royal wrath.


 * C. No original research:
 * Everything is supported by the citations.
 * Everything is supported by the citations.


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I've changed this to "a Catholic underground libel against the Protestant Earl of Leicester satirically detailing his alleged enormities" to hint to the political background this seminal masterpiece of propaganda had; this wasn't just any scandal sheet. I can think of no better word than "enormities" to describe its contents, and my formulation is supported by citations.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I've changed this to "a Catholic underground libel against the Protestant Earl of Leicester satirically detailing his alleged enormities" to hint to the political background this seminal masterpiece of propaganda had; this wasn't just any scandal sheet. I can think of no better word than "enormities" to describe its contents, and my formulation is supported by citations.
 * I've changed this to "a Catholic underground libel against the Protestant Earl of Leicester satirically detailing his alleged enormities" to hint to the political background this seminal masterpiece of propaganda had; this wasn't just any scandal sheet. I can think of no better word than "enormities" to describe its contents, and my formulation is supported by citations.


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:


 * I found new links for two images; they should now be working. All images from the National Portrait Gallery sadly have this "brow sweat" tag, which means they can be used on Wikimedia-related pages, but perhaps not in some countries other than the U.S. Featured Articles like Mary Rose have relatively recently passed with such images. See Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1, where this point is specifically addressed. There are multiple GAs as well with these images from the NPG.


 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

O.K. I will use this page to explain issues step by step for my own convenience and that of future reviewers. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)