Talk:Kitty da Costa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks interesting.. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Suggest "was an English Sephardi Jewess who converted to Christianity" or "was an English Sephardi Jew who converted to Christianity" depending on preferene.
    • rephrased Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Early life section:
  • "most had moved country to avoid the" ..this reads oddly to me - is it a Britishism? I'd suggest "most had come to England to avoid the.."
    • rephrased Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Life:
  • Do we have a full name for Bottlesworth?
    • sadly not! Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Did the The proceedings at large in the Arches Court of Canterbury... do well or do we know?
    • no more infos on it reception, altough the source does say "The long record of the proceedings, over 400 pages, is painful and difficult reading. It is a compilation of all the documents in abstruse technical phraseology, a veritable abracadabra, with letters and comments, distasteful, vulgar and venomous." Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "making her Lady Galway and the first Jewish peer." - this is slightly confusing - did Sarah/Elizabeth not stay Christian after her mother had her baptized? Or do we mean "first ethnically Jewish peer"? The way it's given, some readers are going to assume that Sarah/Elizabeth was Jewish by religion.
    • good point, rephrased. for reference ODNB says "Elizabeth married the future second Viscount Galway in 1747 and thus became the first person of Jewish birth to marry into the peerage." Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Please double check my copyedits to make sure they didn't change meaning.
  • thanks for the changes, they've improved the article Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Neat little article!! Mostly little stuff that needs tweaking.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: thanks for the comments, I think I've addressed everything, so back to you Mujinga (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)