Talk:John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 04:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Pleased to be working with you, Ritchie333. This looks good on my intial check and I found the subject interesting as I never heard of him and know very little about lesser nobles. I intend to have this review done by the end of the week with comments about anything that needs addressed so you can fix, if applicable. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
I magically was able to make a quick glimpse of the ONDB and I didn't see the "wastrel" line although I did see it in one of the other sources. The title fits, regardless, so I feel safe with it. I don't have access to the stuff from The Times so I'll AGF on those. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can walk into any British library nowadays and (provided you have suitable ID) get a card that will allow you access to the Gale Group archives, including complete back issues of The Times. Of course, if British libraries are on a different continent, that's a bit more difficult..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Everything is reflected in the source material.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Fair use on the subject's image is established. The other is within creative commons. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The Independent says the subject was also "Baron Hervey of Ickworth... and Hereditary High Steward of the Liberty of St Edmund" These titles aren't mentioned; I would think they were relevant somehow. The Guardian says he learned he contracted AIDS in 1986, not HIV. It think your interpretation is correct as I don't think there was much in the way of treatment for full-blown AIDS back then. The Easy Anglian Daily Times (page 27) bears this out. I don't think there's a good way to change it; I'm just noting it. This article passes GA criteria as I see it. This was a fun read and you've done a good job with the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. Basically I've now got hold of one of the two book sources mentioned in "further reading" and I'll get the other one at some point, so we can move forward and go for the big brown star. There's a small bit of incidental detail (his mum was a constant in his life, but after 1959 the details are sketchy, and what exactly was his relationship with the young Rupert Everett?) that none of the main sources use and hence isn't in the article yet, and I think the other titles you mention here will be listed there. If they aren't on the main Marquess of Bristol, they definitely should as that's the main place for them. Certainly most sources just refer to "Earl Jermyn" or "Lord Bristol", and his titles get glossed over a bit. I did double-check the "wastrel" quotation and the shotgun incidents. Anyway, thanks for the review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]