Talk:Esther Acklom

Esther Acklom has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 25, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

No Quick-fail issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I have personally found reading this article to be quite delightful - oh so gossipy! but referenced from scholarly/reliable sources. Well-done. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No issues with MOS. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
No original research found, references galore. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran a copyvio tool - no issues. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Stays focused/focussed on Esther Acklom. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No unnecessary details/uses summary style. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Dispassionate yet very readable. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Only one editor, so yes, very stable. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are all fine & copyright status look good. Can hardly believe there isn't a public-domain portrait of Acklom available *somewhere*... oh well. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of around 1900 there was an extant small portrait of her hanging in a stately home. I contacted the home, which is now a wedding venue, but it's not still there sadly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! That is awful. There just have to be portraits of her hanging around *somewhere*, maybe at the Althorp estate or in some collection...probably not clearly-labeled or perhaps somewhat forgotten. I mean, in her day, Esther Acklom Spencer was famous/infamous and her husband wore mourning for the rest of his life. He *had* to have some portrait of her hanging on a wall. Shearonink (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have made tentative contact with a very vague link to the Spencer family in the hope that I might be able to discover if they own one. Not holding out hope... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are relevant, have suitable captions. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Need to do one last deep-dive/careful read-through of the article but haven't seen any issues yet to forestall GA status. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe - A few last questions/issues:

Frances' brother in law,- this term should be Wikilinked to Sibling-in-law. BIL might be a phrase our worldwide readership could be unfamiliar with. Also, consider hyphenating the term per the WP article.

Done

Were Thomas Knox & Edmund Knox related? If so or if not, that should probably be made clear in the text.

I have linked Knox's name, having reread the source and determined who he was; they were brothers.

These are small matters, but once they are adjusted or you respond here, I will proceed with finishing up this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Thank you, I have responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]