Talk:Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This is, at first glance, looking brilliant, so I'd imagine a lot of what I say will be nitpicky. It's a shame you've had to wait so long for a review. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Preliminary issues
[edit]- File:Humphry Repton.jpg uses a template nominated for deletion, and is clearly PD-old. If I was being picky, I would say File:Obelisk.jpg could do with Template:Information and perhaps moving to Commons.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder about the categories- could they perhaps be reordered so all the MP ones are at the end? Do we have a cat for Earls of Leicester? Do we have a cat for where he was born?
- No to the last two questions - why reorder them, precisely? Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just thought it'd look neater. It's not a big deal, I'm not fussed. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- No to the last two questions - why reorder them, precisely? Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sources look appropriate, and the only two formatting concerns are the bare url (http://www.thepeerage.com/p1793.htm#i17922) and the fact "p." should probably be replaced by "pp." when there are multiple pages cited.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
First read through
[edit]- "the owner of a 30,000 acre Norfolk estate" Does it have a name?
- Not that the sources provide, or that I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Returned to Parliament in 1776 for Norfolk" Returned to? He's not been yet? Or is this a term I just haven't come across?
- "returned to" is official parlance for "elected to" Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Earl of Leicester" Link?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "as "the real hero of Norfolk agriculture"." Even in the lead, I think I'd want to see direct quotes cited
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "70 snipes he'd killed" Avoid contractions
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "he finally consented to their marriage on 5 October 1775." Is this the date of consent or of marriage. If the former, what was the latter? If the latter, perhaps it would be worth rephrasing?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "in an attempt to raise funds the king asked subjects to donate." Who was the king at the time? (You mention it later)
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "at St James's Palace" Link
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "that "the most important and symbolic act of Coke's political career" occurred." In-text attribution would be useful here
- It's got a citation one word later; I think the attribution is fairly clear. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "The two disagreed constantly" King and PM? Or secretaries of state?
- Clarified. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not all that clear how the last para of "Entry to Parliament" ties in with Coke specifically. You mention in the lead that Coke lost his seat due to support for Fox, but this isn't made explicit in the main body of the article
- Any suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, in the prose, it isn't all that clear that he lost his seat because of his support for Fox, which is what was made clear in the lead. If you reiterate in that para that Coke was very much with Fox, and that, subsequently, Fox being removed contributed to his own loss of popularity (if what I'm saying is correct) eventually leading to him losing the seat, it will tie in the paragraph with the lead and make clear why it belongs in the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, in the prose, it isn't all that clear that he lost his seat because of his support for Fox, which is what was made clear in the lead. If you reiterate in that para that Coke was very much with Fox, and that, subsequently, Fox being removed contributed to his own loss of popularity (if what I'm saying is correct) eventually leading to him losing the seat, it will tie in the paragraph with the lead and make clear why it belongs in the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Any suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Sandys created a large woodland, planting over 7,000 trees in 22 acres near the Eastern Lodge, another ten acres near the lake, and four acres on marshland." Oddly formulated sentence
- Any better now? Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "the Mainz Psalter for" Italics?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "In 1822 Elizabeth, Coke's daughter, recorded that 800 birds were shot in one day." Comma after "1882"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "planting of Scottish turnips" Link?
- There isn't one I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Did his sheep breed have a name?
- There isn't one I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "with even the American ambassador Richard Rush attending in 1819. along with the French Consul and the Duke of Sussex." Is that meant to be a comma?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "to Parliament in 1796" Link to election article?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "With the death of both William Pitt in 1806" What does this mean?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "the army estimates" What does this mean?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "described with "absurd"," as? And by whom?
- Fixed, and the source doesn't say. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Coke remained in the prime of life;" perhaps add "after his retirement" or something?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "and having another child three years later." Do we know nothing of this child?
- Not in the sources. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Generally looking great; solid research and very well written. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the fixes above, I'm happy to promote. The article's looking really good, and I can't really offer any advice for FAC beyond the obvious- head back to the library, see if there's a book you missed and include anything new, and, if possible, look into the comments I made that you were unable to fix. This is well written, stable, a good length, answers all the questions and sourced to appropriate scholarly literature. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)