Talk:Elizabeth Parish

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Anna Maria Bowes escaped from her governess Elizabeth Parish by crawling over a plank to cross a narrow street? Source: "Despite the waspish vigilance of Elizabeth Parish, her 17-year- old charge Anna had been secretly exchanging love letters for almost a year with a debt-ridden young lawyer called Henry Jessop who lived opposite their house in Fludyer Street, a narrow thoroughfare [...] at the end of January 1788 the resourceful Anna placed a plank from her bedroom window to that of Jessop’s and crawled across to his waiting arms. Heading straight for Gretna Green, the couple married on January 28." Wendy Moore, Wedlock, p. 295
  • ALT1: ... that Elizabeth Parish preferred her position as governess to Mary Eleanor Bowes to her sister Frederica Planta's "mediocre" appointment at court? Source: Wedlock, p. 84: "Well aware that her financial interests were better served by remaining with Mary, for whom she hoped to become the children’s governess, Elizabeth diplomatically declined. The royal family had to settle for her sister Frederica, reportedly fluent in seven languages, who was recruited to teach the little princesses at a salary—scornfully dismissed by Elizabeth as “mediocre”—of £100 a year."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Riner
  • Comment: More hook suggestions welcome as always. Thanks to User:SusunW for help with sourcing and useful discussions!

Moved to mainspace by Kusma (talk). Self-nominated at 00:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Parish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kusma, I'll be reviewing this article using the table below. Comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 20:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Kusma, I have completed the initial review. If you have any questions about my questions do let me know :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and thorough review! I have made some responses and will try to find out more about the Ordnance business. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kusma, thanks for addressing everything so promptly. As mentioned in the table below, I think the link to Board of Ordnance is sufficient for the GA review, but I appreciate you finding out more info, which I think will improve the article even more. As for the Legacy section, see my suggestion in the table and let me know what you think :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 12:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Unexpectedlydian, thanks again for the prompt service :) See the most recent diff and my comments below; I am happy to tweak further if you have an idea for improvement. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma I like your solutions. Happy to pass the article now! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead Wikilink lady's companion. :done She worked for the Bowes-Lyon family in several roles: First, I think "First" should not be capitalised here. done What was the Superintendent of Ordnance? Could this role be explained a bit more? In progress. Basically the Board of Ordnance (now linked) was some part of what became the ministry of defence, and I think this is a mid-level administrative position, but I have asked an expert. That's great, thank you. For the purposes of the review, I think the link to the Board of Ordnance is sufficient. However, if you're able to get more info from the expert I think that would be a great addition to the article. It seems not so easy, see User_talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe#Superintendent_of_Ordnance. I haven't been able to find anything focused on the time in question, so I'd rather leave as is for the moment. No problem, I appreciate you taking the time to check. Wikilink Society of Antiquaries of London. :Done. Early life and family Wikilink the first instance of British Museum (currently only the second instance is linked). :oops, sone. Work for the Bowes-Lyon family In her Confessions, Bowes later described the situation: ... As the following quote is in an older dialect, maybe summarise what she said? For example: In her Confessions, Bowes later described how, even though Parish had "displeased" her, she had been a worthy teacher to Bowes who "resolved to raise 2000 pounds by any means" for Parish. Let me know what you think. Actually, reading this para again, I think it's ok as the situation is detailed beforehand. Lyon placed Bowes' daughter Anna Maria in Parish's care ... This is the first time in the article when the subject is referred to as "Parish" (due to the chronology). Maybe make it a bit clearer that by this point she was married. For example: By this point, Elizabeth Parish had married, and Lyon placed Bowes' daughter Anna Maria her care. :I have clarified at the first use of "Parish" instead. Marriage and death Wikilink Tower of London. :Done. Legacy Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections Is there any reason why there isn't an infobox on this article? :I can't think of a reason to add one. Maybe add {{Use British English}} and {{Use dmy dates}}. :Sure. Add something in the lead about her musical legacy. :Added. Layout Y Words to watch None identified Y Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References and sources are included in the appropriate places.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I will do an initial spot-check around 10% of references, continuing if I find many issues. Moore 2009 Ref 16 Y Ref 20 (see criteria 2d below) Ref 36 Y Detail about street's location is backed up by ref 39, two sentences later (which is close enough in proximity). Ref 39 Y Talbot 2017 Ref 1 Y Society of Antiquaries of London 1798 Ref 43 Y Hills 1910 Ref 42 Y Happy with spot checks.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Content from spot checks that there has been no research. Statements are accompanied with appropriate in-line citations.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Moore 2009 I am being very picky here, but there is a bit of close-wording which I'd suggest changing (especially as I don't think the prose quite works in the article. Source: "Elizabeth Planta would become her constant companion–not only supervising her lessons but accompanying the family on outings to the opera and theatre..." Article: Planta was not just Mary Eleanor's teacher, but also her companion to opera and theatre and chaperone. Maybe rephrase to something like Planta served as Mary Eleanor's teacher and companion to cultural outings. :Rephrased.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers the main aspects of Parish's life and her legacy. Given the nature of Parish's profession, there is a lot of detail about those she worked with/for. In this context, I think that's appropriate.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The Legacy section sort of comes out of nowhere–there is no detail about Parish's musical education earlier in the article. Maybe some of the detail from this section could be incorporated into earlier sections of the aritcle? The problem is that there is nothing definite known about her musical education. Her sister Eliza is known to have played the harpsichord and sing, and the family was visited by the Mozart family when Wolfgang was little (see Andrew Planta for the anecdote), so it makes sense to assume some musical background, but literally all I know about Parish and music is from Talbot 2017. I was wondering whether it should rather be "archival material" instead of "legacy" or something; do you have an idea about that? I think renaming to Archival material is a good idea. Maybe adding a sentence upfront to introduce the section would also help? Something like Parish left behind evidence of a musical education/experience in the form of manuscripts. Tried something in this direction. I like the solution, thanks!
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Majority of recent edits are by nominator and are constructive.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with appropriate copyright statuses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant with appropriate captions. Not a GA requirement, but they need alt descriptions. :Added.
	7. Overall assessment.