Talk:Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

[edit] GA-Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. 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):
  7. 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)

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).

[edit] 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)

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)