Talk:Spencer (surname)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working...

OK - a few comments to get started because I'm short on time IRL today.

First, nice job on the article. It seems well done with only a few drawbacks.

Items that should be addressed before assigning GA status.

Done"Through the 11th to 13th centuries" in lede is ambiguous. Ending in that period, or existing in that period?

Done"This form of the name was popular in both the north country and in Scotland." I'm not sure what the "north country" is. This is probably a common term in the UK but others may wonder.

Done"As a north country word for 'pantry', spence was used by Poet Laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson in the sense of a refectory: "Bluff Harry broke into the spence and turn'd the cowls adrift" (The Talking Oak, l.47.)." You might check on this in the MoS or in the Citation policies closer. Mixing of Harvard-style citations and inline citations isn't allowed. I think you meant that one reference cites the other. It might be better to state "cited in" or "quoted in" xyz in the inline citation so as not to mix. It's possible that this is allowed anyway and I'm missing something. Best to verify though.

Done"German: Speiser - steward, from an agent derivative of Middle High German spise - food or supplies..." I tried to make sense of this sentence, but was having trouble. I recommend rewording for clarity.

Done"("oi" in Greek" There is no end to this parenthesis.

Done"The word economy here has come to mean the management of resources." I wasn't sure what you meant by "Word economy". This needs a bit of rewording to introduce the term or to make it more immediately understandable in the context of the paragraph.

DoneThere are still three "citation needed" tags. One of the show-stoppers for a GA is no original research. There might be a caveat to this (if so, let me know), but otherwise you will want to provide a reference for those sentences or simply strike them to allow the removal of the tags.

Done(Under the "Robert's brother Urse d'Abbetot" section) "Within a few generations the le ("the") usually placed before Despenser was omitted." This doesn't seem to go with the rest of the paragraph. It might be better placed elsewhere.

Done"Two villages have taken the D'Abitot family name: Redmarley D'Abitot which lies in the extreme south-west of Worcester on the Gloucestershire border." Is there another village?

DoneIn the tables at the end, I didn't know what FPM meant. You might just identify this with a few words in the reference or in a footnote.

Comments only and don't require addressing for GA status.

IRT the "list" on the plaque in the church at Dives-sur-Mer. The lede notes that the authenticity of the list is in question, but there is no more on this in the article or in the article on the Dives-sur-Mer article… Those interested in the "questioning of the authenticity" might have to dig into the French Wikipedia article. It would be useful to include some mention of that in this or the Dives-sur-Mer article.

I will try to source this statement

In the "Most popular given name used with surname Spencer" table, there are only male names listed. Are there no female names available in the source?

No, it seems a rather sexist name ...

I'll have to look at a few other "Surname" and similar articles. There is a good deal of general information about heraldry and other information that is not directly relevant to the article. That could indicate a lack of focus. It seemed like it might have been good context, however. I'll give it a second look later. Just a note now since I have some engagements IRL.--Airborne84 (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take your point on the heraldry - I included it because it seems to be what people researching surnames like to find ... Looking for their family coat of arms etc. Not my cup of tea but perhaps of interest to readers?Granitethighs 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this A - I will try and tick off your suggestions a.s.a.p. Granitethighs 02:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've updated the article. I'll look at it again in the next day or so. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to butt in, but I think all reference to the plaque [1] at Dives-sur-Mer should be cut. While mentioned in many old genealogies, the list has not – like the so-called Battle Abbey Roll – held up to scholarly scrutiny. The Spencer family has a long and illustrious history and needn't depend on such tangential (and questionable) references. Far better to rely on something like The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families by the English scholars Lewis C. Lloyd and David C. Douglas, both of whom were experts in the field. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK MD, the idea is to put the article under scrutiny. Another editor has also queried the authenticity of this material and so I have removed it as you suggested. Please feel free to make further suggestions.Granitethighs 10:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article reasonably represents a GA at this point. I'll leave a few final comments, none of which detract from my support.

Under "Foreign equivalents", if the words "expe(n)sa (pecunia)" are meant to be in Late Latin, then they should be italicized to be consistent with the other forign words/terms in the article.

You defined FPM for the end table in the text itself. I personally would relegate that type of information to a footnote since it tends to interrupt/clutter the text. The current method also wouldn't work well if there were more than one term that needed explaning. I won't say it's wrong, however, and my way of doing it may not be any more "correct" than you have it. If you prefer to leave it as is, someone else will let you know if it merits a change, I'm sure.

I think it's OK now, but the lede should summarize the entire article. The "Spencer aristocracy" and "Notable Spencers" sections may be under-represented in the lede. It would likely need to be addressed before an FA nomination (perhaps by shaving the material in the first paragraph slightly and expanding the latter portion of the lede with this material—or just expanding the latter portion), but I think it's OK for a GA.

Nice work on the article, and I encourage you to review one of the other pending GAs since the backlog is sizable—if you're not doing so already. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]