Talk:Lilias Margaret Frances, Countess Bathurst/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No DABs.
 * The licensing on File:Lilias Margaret Frances, Countess of Bathurst (d. 1965), née Borthwick. Photographed 24 September 1902.jpg needs to be fixed as I'm certain that the current tag is wrong unless the uploader is over 140 years old. It needs both UK and US licensing tags.
 * How does the updated licensing look? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it because UK law says life +70 for photos taken before '57 and I'm presuming that Lafayette took the photo. The URAA says the same thing provided that the photo was out of copyright as of 1996 when the URAA took effect. That one was trickier than I expected.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is there a cite below the authority control box?
 * fixed


 * Why is her father's revival of his paper's fortunes important enough to warrant mention in the lede?
 * Suppose it isn't


 * Hypenate far right
 * done


 * Provide a cite to Northcliffe's quote in the lede
 * added


 * Why are you linking her father in both the lede and the personal life section?
 * unlinked


 * Give Bathurst's rank in the army
 * added


 * Longwood House is notable on its own, why is her selling her father's house important?
 * It's where she lived for several years, the house may not be notable enough to have its own article but I think it's relevant enough for inclusion


 * Reword owner of The Morning Post.[9] Glenesk replaced his father, Peter Borthwick, as editor of the paper in 1852, and he purchased The Morning Post in 1876 without using the name of the paper in such close proximity
 * Replaced with 'he purchased it' but I'm not sure that's better, might be a better way


 * Upon Oliver's death, Lady Bathurst became involved in the paper in 1905. delete the year as you've already told the reader when that was
 * Done


 * the only woman newspaper owner at the time in London,[17] and by some papers that she was the only woman in the world don't use woman in such close proximity, I'd suggest changing one of these to female or some such
 * Hawkeye7 has recently informed me that female is a bad word-- but I personally don't agree with that, changed the first instance to female.


 * Who made these accusations against Ware?
 * Clarified, and no I have no idea who Buist is


 * with no comments without commentary?
 * Sure


 * What makes the Midleton incident important? I'd thought that it had some connection with Lloyd George's fall from power, but apparently not
 * It was a disagreement between Bathurst and an important member of British society. I've expanded on it a little bit, it eventually came up in the House of Lords


 * When did she agitate against Balfour?
 * The sourcing is unclear, it basically says that one day she decided he should go, and he did.


 * Is relative obscurity your term or used by one of your sources?
 * mine, most of the sources either don't mention her life after selling the paper or describe her kinda just staying at home and not doing much, hence relative obscurity. It's telling that newspaper profiles all but cease after the paper is sold


 * Books don't need page numbers; that's what cites are for.
 * Think I cut them all


 * Be consistent about using publisher locations or not in the bibliogaphy
 * Think I cut them


 * Add oclc numbers for Hoffman and Lucas--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hoffman was actually a magazine article, I've fixed the cite, added for Lucas
 * thanks for your review so far, I've responded to all points. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as the image goes, I can't actually find a definitive indication that it was definitely published in sufficient time to be PD, though it almost certainly is. The ODNB has a scanned portrait painted in 1919 that would be PD as a faithful reproduction of a 2D work, I think. Alternatively, there are quite a few poor images definitely published in newspapers that I could upload, such as this one. Alternatively, would there be a correct way to license the image in the article? Thoughts on how to proceed? Otherwise, I think I've responded to all your points. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)