User talk:Ww2censor/Katherine Stanhope

GA-Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Very well written. Could use an a few images, and a succession box. Otherwise, fantastic job. MrPrada 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kindly. I've searched high and low for other images (most of which were created by van Dyck) but to no avail. If I may, the succession box isn't needed as she was a life peer. Thanks again, Craigy (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. There are a few minor problems with the article which should be addressed however.

All web sources should have publication information and last access dates. These are currently missing for some sources.
More context would aid comprehension. At the moment, the article tells the story of the Countess but does not mention contemporary events as they are happening very clearly. As a result, the text can sometimes jump surprisingly.
Some references come in the middle of sentances. These should always come after punctuation.

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your first and third issues, but didn't want to approach the second, so hopefully someone can give it a shot. Craigy (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns

This article was created with material very closely paraphrased from the source and remains derivative of that work.

Consider the following:

Example 1

At its creation, the article said:

Philip became a royal ward and Lady Stanhope was obliged to pay £2000 for the grant of the wardship to herself, money which she borrowed due to her husband dying in debt and her father-in-law, Lord Chesterfield, refusing to help her. Relations with Lord Chesterfield appear to have been generally poor, since he petitioned against her in 1636 for her refusal to pay ship money of £30, which had then been claimed from his tenants.

The 2004 ODNB says:

Philip became a royal ward, and Lady Stanhope was obliged to pay £2000 for the grant of the wardship to herself, money which she claimed later to have had to borrow after her husband died in debt and her father-in-law refused to help her. Relations with the earl appear to have been generally poor, since he petitioned against her in 1636 for her refusal to pay ship money of £30 (assessed on Chesterfield lands which provided her annual jointure of £1000), which had then been claimed from his tenants.

The article currently says:

When Lord Stanhope died intestate at St. Martin-in-the-Fields in 1634, their eldest son, Philip, became a royal ward and Lady Stanhope was obliged to pay £2000 for the grant of the wardship to herself.[4] She was forced to borrow this money due to her husband dying in debt and her father-in-law, Lord Chesterfield, refusing to help her. Relations with her father-in-law appear to have been generally poor, since he petitioned against her in 1636 for her refusal to pay ship money of £30, which had then been claimed from his tenants.

Example 2

At its creation, the article said:

any children from the marriage would have had no inheritance rights under English law and if she predeceased him, all of Lady Stanhope's property would be forfeit to The Crown. Heenvliet's confidante, Louis de Dieu, later wrote a letter to James Ussher, the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh containing full details of Heenvliet's lineage and honours and asked him to reassure Lady Stanhope as to the worth of her possible future husband.

The ODNB says:

any children from the marriage would have no inheritance rights in England, and if she predeceased him all her property in England would be forfeit to the crown. His confidant ‘Louis de Dieu’ wrote a long letter to James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, with full details of Heenvliet's lineage, honours, and virtues, and asked him to reassure ‘ceste tres noble Dame’ as to the worth of her intended husband (Bodl. Oxf., MS Rawl. D. 559, fols. 45–51).

The current article says:

any children from the marriage would have had no inheritance rights under English law, and, if she predeceased him, all of Lady Stanhope's property would be forfeit to The Crown. Heenvliet's confidant, Louis de Dieu, later wrote a letter to James Ussher, the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, containing full details of Heenvliet's lineage and honours and asked Ussher to reassure Lady Stanhope as to the worth of her possible future husband.

Example 3

At creation, the article said:

However, the land from which Lady Stanhope intended to raise this money had to be sold to buy the Chesterfield estates, the income from which made her son, Philip, independent of his mother. In 1654, Philip (by now Earl of Chesterfield) brought a lawsuit against his mother which seems to have been connected to the money reserved for his sisters, yet possibly connected to the terms of his recent marriage contract, since the lawsuit also involved his father-in-law, the Earl of Northumberland. Lady Stanhope counterclaimed by claiming all expenses paid to her son since his father's death, whilst at the same time pleading for assistance and sympathy from family or friends.

The ODNB says:

However...the land from which she had intended to raise the money for their portions had to be sold to buy the Chesterfield estate, the income from which made Philip independent of his mother and enabled him to marry Anne Percy, daughter of the earl of Northumberland, in 1652. Following Anne's death in 1654 Philip brought a lawsuit against his mother whose details are unclear, but which seems to have been connected to the money reserved for his sisters, and possibly also to the terms of his marriage contract, since the case also involved Northumberland. Lady Stanhope countered by claiming all the expenditure she had laid out on him since his father's death, while sending heartfelt pleas for assistance and sympathy to any friend or relation she thought might help her.

The article currently says:

However, the land from which Lady Stanhope intended to raise this money had to be sold to buy the Chesterfield estates, the income from which made her son, Philip, independent of his mother. In 1654, Philip brought a lawsuit against his mother which seems to have been connected to the money reserved for his sisters, yet possibly connected to the terms of his recent marriage contract to Lady Anne Percy, since the lawsuit also involved his father-in-law, the Earl of Northumberland. Lady Stanhope counterclaimed by claiming all expenses paid to her son since his father's death, whilst at the same time pleading for assistance and sympathy from family or friends.

I have not closely compared all of the remaining text. I believe these examples reflect clear copyright concerns. In addition, the material follows very closely in structure on the original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With so many other inline references and sources it seems to me this is more a candidate for rescue rather than outright deletion. I don't have access to the ONDB to see what might be necessary to remove unless the above examples are in fact all that need fixing. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's not it. I picked out three passages more or less randomly. I can do a more thorough review to make sure (this is one of the several thousand articles up at this CCI, but its GA status makes the extra time worth it), but the history here makes it likely that in its entirely the article is an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted source that will need to be rewritten from scratch. I hope that interested contributors will be able to rewrite this article. We've already lost a couple of notable subjects due to this, and there will probably be more in the pipeline. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]