Talk:Eliza Stephens/GA1

GA Review

Passed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can have a look at this one. The research really shines off the page: no small feat given the huge and multilingual list of sources. Always good to see biographies outside the usual cohort of posh white men with military medals! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist, thank you for picking this up! This article is a collaboration with @SusunW, who wrote the Russian section and the article about Eliza's granddaughter. —Kusma (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even better - thanks. I've put in my first set of comments: it's ended up longer than I expected (as it often does...), but lots of them are fairly minor and easily-addressed nits to pick. Please do take your time and let me know if I've been unclear or unfair anywhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist Thanks for picking her up. Really appreciate your help in improving the article and am looking forward to collaborating on it. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered most of the Russian section questions but will have to come back to it tomorrow. Am really enjoying the collaboration. Who knew pence was abbreviated with a d, because that's logical??? SusunW (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense... I was always told it was short for denarii, which is the ancient Roman currency... go figure! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have been very busy in real life today, and am in the middle of completing another GA review (I am the reviewer, and it's been a bit long since I started), but I will do my best to address all issues as soon as I can. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleared all of the Russian part, references and photos, leaving Kusma the British part. But, I'll keep checking on it. If he can't shake loose, I can try to wade through it, but I am not familiar with the sources, so probably better if he can. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the review UndercoverClassicist. SusunW (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's very much no rush, from my point of view. Happy for Kusma to come in whenever ready. Thank you both for your part in this so far: I've really enjoyed the process and feel like the article is shaping up very nicely. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll get back to this article within the next 48 hours and hope to address some more of your many excellent points. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to work on this in a slow but steady manner. Some of the sources contradict each other, and sorting this is slow work. Basically, we have the three claims "Eliza and Henry were both part of the Temple of Folly in mid-1776" (from Foot), "Eliza and Henry married ten days after meeting each other" (from one of the court reports I think) and "Eliza and Henry married in December 1776" (from some letters and the Monthly Miscellany) and not all three of these can be simultaneously true. Arnold believes in the Temple of Folly and a late December marriage, but says that early December letters mentioning Henry and Eliza as husband and wife indicate not that they were married, but that Mary Eleanor Bowes was very loose with the words "husband" and "wife". I don't know whether he isn't aware of the ten days, deliberately ignores them or interprets the statement as them living together and having a sexual relationship without being formally married. Moore ignores that Foot mentions Henry early on and constructs a story where he comes in in November and marries Eliza in December, early enough for the letter to be correct. Parker, who is overall the least informed of the three 20th century biographers of MEB that I have read, seems to believe in the ten days and the Temple of Folly, so the wedding happens around August of 1776. I have been mostly following Moore, who seems to be the best source, but I may need to mention more of the other interpretations. Anyway, your suggestions are much appreciated, I just can't follow all of them easily without doing a better job on the central contradiction mentioned above. The good news is that it has become much clearer to me what the contradictions are and where I think they come from. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As ever: please do take your time and feel free to ping me if you want me to look at anything specific. Equally, if any of the points have become obsolete, please do let me know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist, I think I'd like to hear your opinion on some of my changes. Apologies again for taking so long, work has been unexpectedly and incessantly busy for the last two weeks. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, @SusunW: as far as I'm concerned, most of the substantive stuff is now pretty much sorted, and so I've started the spot checks. Is there anything else content-wise that you think is still very "open" or needing a major look at it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through it again and only found one minor thing to tweak. However, I am not sure that having a conversion rate is helpful. While doing another review, I recently came across this tool, which I think provides a better perspective on for example Stoney's £5,000 inheritance from 1776 (rounded to 1780) was the equivalent of 33333 days of wages for a skilled worker, i.e. 91 years, more than the average lifetime. It was much harder to find that info for Russia, but good that for the UK that tool exists. I'll leave it up to you Kusma whether you think this is a better measure than the conversion to current currency. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take would be that the comparison ("more than a lifetime's earnings...") is indispensable if we can provide it: it's more intuitively clear than the conversion and avoids the problems of differences in living costs and economic inequality. However, I've got no problem with including both if either of you think that would be wise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that is a good comparison. Sorry I wasn't clear, my comment was in regards to "equivalent to £287,000 in 2021" SusunW (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [1], I notice that all measures other than the RPI-based one used by the {{inflation}} template give significantly higher modern equivalences, which fit better with my own impression of the amounts. I don't quite know how to cite those, though, so I use the lazy way out, which is the template. —Kusma (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before full review

Resolved matters

Not a major drama, but one-sentence paragraphs aren't great. Can we push the first two paragraphs together, and perhaps then separate in approximately the middle?

done SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth glossing what a governess is (or at least wiktionary-linking), for those who haven't seen Mary Poppins?

linked SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephenses received a £1,000 payment: optional, but consider "Eliza and Henry" or "the newlyweds": at least momentarily, I took the Stephenses to be Henry's parents.
Done. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stoney-Bowes marriage and similar should take an endash, not a hyphen, as it was the marriage of Stoney to Bowes (but Stoney-Bowes family is correct with a hyphen).
Done. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses Bowes' but also Stephens's: suggest consistency (MOS:POSSESSIVES would prefer the second, but either's fine for GA).

Grammatically yes, should be 's. changed. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Henry's death: give the year?

Not sure 1789 or 1790, but said around 1790. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think lady-in-waiting should be all lc.

done SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine the Great is pretty famous, but suggest "the empress Catherine..." per WP:POPE.

done SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens's daughter Elizabeth married Mikhail Speransky: introduce Speransky.

done SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

her daughter Elisabeth Bagréeff-Speransky: this comes up a few times: if Elisabeth is her only daughter, there should be a comma ("her daughter, Elisabeth...").

done SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens lived with her granddaughter and other family in various Russian cities until 1815 when she died in Kyiv, in present-day Ukraine.: assuming the granddaughter is Bagréeff-Speransky, I'd make that unambiguous. On Kyiv: wasn't the region always called Ukraine, but Ukraine was previously part of Russia?

Yes, Bagréeff-Speransky, changed. I don't recall any of the sources naming Ukraine. They all indicated they lived in Russia, but named the cities, which clearly aren't in Russia now. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "present day Ukraine". The status of Ukraine (which was part of the Russian Empire then) isn't all that super relevant here. —Kusma (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wl German Reformed?
German(-speaking) and Reformed (i.e. Calvinist), not German Reformed. Linked Reformed. —Kusma (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
prince Alexander: as it's a title in apposition with a name, capitalise Prince.
Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not usual to put people's dates in body text (MOS:BIRTHDATE: Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance. If the date of their birth or death is relevant to the story, mention it when it becomes relevant (e.g. Frederica's death should be mentioned when the narrative reaches 1778, but Peggy's death should only be mentioned in 1834).
Removed all the dates, they are not very important here. —Kusma (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wl British Museum.
There are some small sandwiches between the portraits here on my display.

I moved all the one's in this section to right margins. For me, it is easier if text is aligned left and photos right. I also added alt-text. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in general the default should be for images to the right, though we often make an exception when the image 'faces' right, especially when it's a portrait. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens left without her children for Saint Petersburg, Russia: if keeping Russia, needs a comma afterwards, but you might consider not glossing that one (in the same way as we probably wouldn't gloss New York City, United States)

I added a comma after Russia as I can assure you that many Americans would assume Florida. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Planta says: as Planta is a primary source, I'd put this into the past tense: Planta wrote [in year?] that...")

Changed SusunW (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens: what was that and what did being suitable for it say about Stephens?

The first part I can source and answer, a finishing school for the aristocracy. The second part not so clear. He wrote that she was respectable/skilled, or at least was willing to say that she was. Can't really speculate on what it says about her, can only state what his opinion was. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly introduce Shuvalov and, later, Modest Andreyevich Korff and Mikhail Speransky.

Added descriptions with sources for Shubalov and Korff. Speransky is already described in the sentence following his meeting with his future wife. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

studying at the summer cottage of Samborski: I'm a little confused as to what I'm picturing here: studying in what sense?

Changed to visiting. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and lived along the , opposite Aptekarsky Island.: not grammatically clear whether this is Scott or Speransky. If Scott, suggest and who.

yes Scott. Fixed. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

within six months were at odds: suggest rephrasing this per MOS:IDIOM.

Fixed. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her charge was Shuvalova's youngest daughter, Alexandra (1775-1847): as per discussion further up, dates should be removed here unless it's vitally important that the reader learns them both now.
When he discovered they were returning in the autumn: relatively minor, but MOS:SEASONS would prefer that we don't use seasons to mark a time of year if we can avoid doing so, as they're a little ambiguous (does early September count?) and different in different parts of the world (to an Australian, autumn is about March-May).

No idea. The source says he left his father's house, as soon as he found out that they were returning "late in the autumn". To me that means November, i.e. Thanksgiving/harvest, but I have no clue what that means in Russia, except that Canadian harvest is typically around October and the two countries are at similar latitude. Barring a source that is more specific, I don't think we can say. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's worth making an exception to MOS:SEASONS here as a lesser evil vs. OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Speranskaya's recovery from scarlet fever left her in delicate health: we haven't actually said that she had scarlet fever yet.

Reworded. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

During this time, Stephens lost her husband's sister, Marie, and brother-in-law, Joseph Ferrand, in France: does lost mean that they died? Clarify if so.

done. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an instrumental pediatrician: I'm not sure what one of those is: does instrumental here mean very significant?

Some sources indicate he was one of the first pediatricians in Russia, but I didn't research him and am unwilling to say that or that he was very significant. Gamolya & Mokrousova say "Leaving the service at his own request, he received as a reward the badge of distinction of immaculate service for thirty years and as a nobleman was 'decorated in 1814 with a bronze medal on the Vladimir ribbon and received a certificate that he performed this position assiduously and diligently'." So I modified it to read "a pediatrician honoured several times for his work". Better? SusunW (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much better (while something can be instrumental for or instrumental in something, we don't generally use that word as an adjective in apposition). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth making some mention that Perm is a rather long way away from St. Petersburg (which is usually written like that in English, rather than Saint.)

Okay found a source – 2000 km. east. Again avoiding confusion with Florida and US is typically St. and Britain typically St so makes it even more confusing, IMO. SusunW (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the mother-in-law, and was it she or Bunge who received the pension?

To avoid using Stephens's name twice in the same sentence, I used mother-in-law and to me it seems clear. Changed to make it clear that Stephens received the pension. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

protect her from the stain of illegitimacy: a little flowery for an encyclopaedia, I think. Social stigma attached to illegitimacy?

done. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(also English if possible): this sits a bit oddly in brackets. Did he express his wish that she should study English, if that were possible? If it was, suggest simply adding "English"; otherwise, we should clarify it something like I've just written.

done. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She studied in the pension of Madame Vogel: clarify what a pension is in this context, as we've previously had it used with a different (more common) meaning.

linked Pension (lodging) and called it a boarding house to avoid confusion. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)* (also transliterated as Imburkh): suggest cutting; it's often the case that names have alternative transliterations, but we pick one for the purposes of the article. Unless it's vital that the reader know both, I'd cut.[reply]
done. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empress of Russia: we had a Tsar earlier, so shouldn't this be Tsarina (or he be Emperor)?

changed to Tsarina. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note 4 is a primary source, which isn't a huge problem but also would be best replaced with a secondary one if found.

We genuinely tried. Researched this Planta family for months before we started writing this. Would be lovely if something showed up, but if it exists we didn't find it. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note 144: should the colon be a comma (that is, it's p2, p99 and p100)?

No it shouldn't. Pagination to 1861 Korff indicates if it is Part 1, i.e. 1: 99-100 or Part 2, i.e. 2: 99-100. Both parts are bound in the same book and each is numbered 1 to whatever, so I indicated which part. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would give New York simply as such, not New York, New York. I'd certainly give Oxford, England as simply Oxford.

I disagree. New York is a state, but also a city, so which one requires both. Ditto with Oxford, how does someone know you mean England rather than Maryland, Mississippi, Maine, Michigan, Massachusetts. I guess Brits would assume England, but would everyone else?

Very much nominator's preference.

Speransky had risen from being the son of a priest with no surname born on the Saltykov estate: this sentence runs on a bit and gets a little unclear. Did Speransky or his father have no surname, and what was the significance of that fact? Similarly, we've implied that being born on the Saltykov estate was in some way a low station, but haven't been very clear on how that was.

Neither Speransky nor his father had a surname, they were peasants. I get the impression from Raeff that there was some formal process, i.e. "Family names had been introduced legally shortly before Speransky's birth, but many peasants had not received any yet…Speransky received his last name only upon entering the theological seminary…" (p. 1) Being born on the Saltykov estate isn't implying an indication of low station, it is recognition of the relationship with his mother-in-law's employer, which is reiterated by the note. I've rearranged it a bit. Better? SusunW (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would give some explanation, for readers who won't get the context, of what it meant to be born without a surname (ie, that he was a peasant). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, added that. SusunW (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a pension of ₽ 2,000 to 3,000 annually: per MOS:CURRENCY, we should contextualise amounts in roubles, either with a conversion into dollars, pounds or euros or (better) with some sense of how much that was.

Historical exchange rates are hard! After over 1/2 an hour of searching, it seems nigh on to impossible without knowing if we are speaking of paper rubles or silver rubles. This, says in 1810, 3.24 paper rubles = 1 silver ruble (p. 15) and in 1813, 1 paper ruble was the equivalent of "10.5 d. of English money". (p. 142) Absolutely no clue what that type of notation means for British money. If that means anything to you perhaps it can be figured out, but it's pretty much unintelligible to me. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The d is pence, so 10.5d is nearly a shilling (12d), which is a pretty everyday coin (as a rule of thumb, it had roughly the spending power of a modern £1). Could we contextualise perhaps with annual wages: how long would it take an ordinary-ish person to put their hands on 2,000 roubles, and what might they buy with it if they had it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would never have gotten there. Who knew a shilling was 12 pence? When we lived in Belize it was 25 cents, i.e. 1/4 of a Belizean dollar, so I just assumed a shilling was the same everywhere. I spent about an hour trying to find something about spending power (in the past I have used a comparison of the cost of a loaf of bread in two places to demonstrate location variances in history), but can't really find anything about that. This makes it fairly clear that 2,000 rubles was a fortune, but I'm not exactly sure how we best extrapolate a comparison. Have a doctor's appointment, but I'll be back. SusunW (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table 8 on p63 looks pretty good: in 1766, a metalworker in St. Petersburg could expect to earn around 25 silver roubles a year, which makes 2000 roubles (paper or silver, but my hunch from reading this paper would be that silver was the normal unit of account) at least "several tens of times a typical worker's annual wage" if you want to put it clearly but conservatively. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we split the difference between 2000-3000 we're at 2500, which would be 100 times, which I think would be easier for a reader to grasp. Your thoughts on "approximately 100 times the annual wage of a typical worker in Saint Petersburg"? (I think it's probably important to specify where, as elsewhere he shows Moscow wages verses rural wages were considerably different.) I am truly enjoying your insights, for the record. SusunW (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be absolutely fine with that. With the word "approximately", I'd say we're covered for WP:OR nicely: it's a routine calculation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That's what I was hoping you'd decide. It's just simple math and we can show with the source how we arrived at that. Added SusunW (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Stephens' death: check through for inconsistent possessives like this: I believe we've established that we're going for Stephens's throughout.

Reran this query and I think I got all the Bowes' and Stephens' fixed. SusunW (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

under the name of Anna Andreevna Smirnovna, as an orphan daughter of Speransky's nephew, Andrey Smirnov, who had died: it's not 100% clear here whether Anna Andreevna actually existed.

She didn't. It was an invented relationship and an invented child of Smirnov, who had no children, simply to create a "legitimate" identity for Annette. Korff called it a well-meaning ruse. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great quote: I'd put it in the article. It's not ambiguous per se, but I think we could make it more obvious that she's taking on an invented identity, rather than 'replacing' a real (deceased?) person. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm back, I'll see if I can find it. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through scores of emails looking for it, but I can't remember which source by Korff it is in. However, Speranky's letter which GRuban translated here User:GRuban/Russkiy Arhiv makes it really clear that Smirnov didn't have any children and that the entire identity was invented to protect her. I changed it to read "as the fictitious orphan daughter of Speransky's nephew, Andrey Smirnov, who had died without having any children". Better? SusunW (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the Governor-General of the Poltava Governorate in Ukraine: see my point further up about how this article treats Ukraine in this period: we implied earlier that it's only a modern-day construct, but now we're using it as current during the period under discussion.

cut in Ukraine. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an allowance of ₽1,000 annually: as before. Separately, I'd suggest it would be clearer to a general reader as 1,000 roubles.

If you figure out the equivalencies I'll add something. Changed currency. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

based on the above, used same calculation to arrive at 40 times wages and added that. SusunW (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note f: seems like quite a lot of fairly arcane detail on a relatively minor point?

Not really, IMO. If anyone is ever going to figure out Marianne and Annette's trajectory, (Speransky says Annette was baptized after birth at the estate), one needs to know when Marianne moved to Velikopolye. 1811, as put forth by Sozinova cannot be correct if Annette was born in 1808, which genealogies show.

I understand the desire to remove confusion over the dates (the last two sentences), but I'm not sure I see the relevance of the first two, which discuss where the money came from. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my eye it is relevant, because Marianne actually bought it. Most sources about Speransky say he bought Velikopolye for the family and while technically he did, it was with "her" money and at her direction. Could she have even bought it as a married woman (she didn't divorce until 1810)?, I kind of think not given that whole "one flesh" mentality that was a world-wide phenomenon. These women were pretty unique and together represent a range of context about women's history that is rarely depicted. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a footnote, so I don't think there's any real question of it pushing the article out of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which is all we really care about for GA: happy to leave this one aside, and I certainly see the reasons for including it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note i: likewise, I'm not sure we need much more explanation of that point than we received in the body text.

I disagree. It's one of those "hidden" bits of women's history, women were often penalized and men were not. I find it interesting that from the 18th century Russia actually did punish fathers too. 21:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK: it could certainly be considerably collapsed, though, if that's the key information you want to get across. How about something like Russian law forbade legitimization of children born outside of marriage under the Russkaya Pravda from the 11th century. Adoption of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye in 1649 barred even the ability to legitimize a child if the parents subsequently married. Punishment for a woman guilty of "the sin of fornication", of which an illegitimate child was evidence, ranged from forcibly requiring her to join a convent, to pay a fine, or to complete a ten-year penance. Peter the Great imposed imprisonment as a penalty for the father and required fathers to support their illegitimate offspring. Legitimization remained largely banned until 1902.

Done. SusunW (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anon (1788): could we give it an Open Library number?

done SusunW (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hyphen in the title between between and Stephens. it's nominator's preference whether you delete that as an artefact of typographical conventions or keep it, but if kept, it should be an endash. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold 1987 could do with an ISBN, an OCLC or an OL.

done SusunW (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, we're inconsistent about whether to use publisher-place, or just publisher.

working on it.

Okay, I think we have all publishers with a place, but if I missed any, let me know. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is good now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation in English-language book titles is also a little variable.

working on it.

I think everything is in title-case, but if I missed anything, just say so. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stoney Bowes02.jpg needs a US PD tag and its source link is broken. If the author is genuinely unknown, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might work, since technically only the copyright holder can 'publish' it, and that copyright would have expired by 1928?
I do really not know the author, but it has been published before 1815. I have used a much better resolution version from [2]. —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New image checks out fine. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:EkaterinaShuvalovaGreuze.jpg: technically, we could do with some indication of when this was published (that is, put on public display), but I'm not going to kick up a major fuss on what seems like a fairly obvious case of PD-ART (despite the Hermitage's quite strenuous objections).

It's taking longer than I thought it would because I had to research when it was placed in the Hermitage and figure out which Art tag to use, but I think I have it. According to the database of the Hermitage, it was acquired in 1923, but there is a problem. The commons image says it is by Jean-Baptiste Greuze but the Hermitage site says the artist was Jens Juel (1745-1802). There is another version on commons that gives the correct author, but it has a border. So, I had to fix the creator first, then verify Danish law (70 years after death) and use the 1996 tag. SusunW (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivanov Pavel Alexeyevich - Portrait of Count Mikhail Speransky..jpeg: needs a US PD tag.

Done. SusunW (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:E.Speranskya.jpg needs a US PD tag. Its source is given as "scan", but it's not clear what was scanned.
Replaced by a copy of the same image that has a clearer source. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Entered the Hermitage in 1919, which I'm happy to take as publication. Does need a US PD tag, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rationale, Bagréeff-Speransky died in 1857. The term for anonymous works made prior to 1943 in Russia was 50 years. Even using 120 years, after subject's death copyright would have expired in Russia in 1977 in Russia, well before the URAA date in 1996. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this for Template:PD-1996? I think we're fine if published in Russia; it needs to have been published before the source country established copyright relations with the US, which is 1973 for Russia. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was acquired by the Hermitage in 1919, long before 1973. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest separating primary and secondary sources in the bibliography.

Why? I've literally never seen that done. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic practices vary between articles, and this might be more of a 'thing' in ancient-history circles, but the idea is that (per WP:PRIMARY) we treat a 'citation' to a primary source and a secondary source differently: primary-source citations have very little authority for verification and are usually about saying "here's where I got this and where you can find its broader context", whereas secondary citations are about saying "this is how I can prove that the fact stated here is correct". Being clear about the distinction avoids 'fooling' the reader that your citation to e.g. an ancient historian is being treated as more authoritative than it is. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Since my background/training is in under-represented groups, i.e. indigenous peoples and women, the practice I was taught is the reverse. Never accept what secondary sources said because "authorities" could not avoid putting their spin on it given the cultural biases that existed in whatever time frame. Look at the primary sources and sources from within the community itself to see if the secondary source could be valid or is invalid. It took a lot to adjust to WP's secondary source rule and I still find I am more comfortable back-tracking to see the primary records for myself. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see that tension. I generally rationalise it by the idea that a primary source never carries too much authority when it comes to establishing what did or didn't happen: we know that (for example), if we have someone's diary or letter about how an event went down, they're going to give us one perspective, which will be affected by their point of view, level of knowledge, audience, interests and so on. It's the totality of our primary sources that we generally use when deciding if a new piece of information passes the "sniff test": we wouldn't rewrite a whole historical narrative from a single new source without an incredibly compelling reason. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, primary sources are fine to make the absolute barest statements of fact, in particular to talk about themselves (so to write statements like "Stephens wrote in a letter that..."). The only rule for GA is that there has to be some kind of list of sources, and that's definitely passed here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite professor always called it the weight of the evidence. How close to the event was it recorded? How likely was the recorder to have known? Did they have a reason to lie (or be biased)? Has the context been re-examined? Are there multiple authentic voices telling the same version even if "conventional wisdom" at the says something different? Yes, the "sniff test" is a good analogy and recognizing that there is never one "truth" but multiple versions and perspectives. The good source/bad source of WP is hard for me to process, it's far more complicated than that. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it might be worth creating a separate section for newspaper reports, which otherwise sit awkwardly at the end, apparently out of alphabetical order. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly have no idea how to do that. I always list authored works first and works without an author separately but both in alpha order. Maybe Kusma knows. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a book sorted under Anon.; I'm not sure there's a massive difference between that and a newspaper report: both have an author, but we just don't know their name. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, alphabetized in one go. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Beloborodko 2022 a reliable source (asking without judgement, but it seems to be an online newspaper, so good to be sure)?

According to RIA Novosti, the newspaper Moskovskij Komsomolets has been in business since 1919, is nationally distributed, has approximately 1 million subscribers, and "specializes in publishing sharp social and political materials, economic reviews, city news, gossip columns and entertainment information".[3] Beloborodko is a general interest journalist employed by the paper since about 2018, from articles I find. I see nothing that indicates she or the paper are controversial in any way. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our page says it's a tabloid: we usually give those a wide berth (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). I can't find it discussed specifically on this page, but other tabloids (see for instance Bild, The Daily Mail and The Sun) are often considered unreliable or at best questionable sources. As far as I can see, it's only holding up The Velikopolye estate was destroyed during World War II: that's not a massively controversial claim, but it would be good if we could find a more academic source for it. I did have a go at poking around on Google and didn't get much; if you can read Russian, presumably the journalist got the fact from somewhere that's likely to be reasonably easy to access? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Russian, and because I live in Mexico, a lot of sites are blocked for me (especially from the UK, why?), but I'll give it a go and see if I can find anything. SusunW (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, I'm at the place where it would be nice if we could find a better source, but I'd prefer to keep the fact and the suboptimal source together than to remove both. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searched "Усадьба Великополье", Вторая Мировая Война, "Сперанский" "Velikopolye Estate", World War II, "Speransky" and besides Moskovskij Komsomolets I find this from a news agency Veliky Novgorod.ru 2019 media registration number El No. FS77-76751, editor in chief Aleksey Khatuntsev. "К слову, имение в 3-х км от деревни Савино постигла незавидная участь. В годы Великой Отечественной войны оно было разрушено." [By the way, the estate, 3 km from the village of Savino, suffered an unenviable fate. During the Great Patriotic War it was destroyed.] I found no journal sources and I have no idea if this information was taken from the book Сперанский в новгородской ссылке [Speransky in Novgorod Exile] that the article is discussing, as I cannot find a copy of the book that I can access. Thoughts?

You might want to add that article in as a multi-cite: it's still not a wonderful source, but there's a degree to which we can compensate for source quality through quantity (if lots of reasonable-quality sources say something, that counts for more than just a single one and reassures readers a little). I wouldn't replace the existing citation with it, as the two seem to be broadly comparable (news reporters rather than academics, researching at best at second hand). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, added. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original link of Gamolya and Mokrousova 2005 appears to be dead. What makes it a reliable source?

As near as I can tell, it was a business magazine started in 1990 by the publishing house Galician Contracts and was published weekly.p 224 and had the largest circulation in Ukraine. I can't find any issues after 2014, so possibly it is defunct? Several articles on it say that it changed formats scaling down general interest articles to more business/advertising type of coverage. SusunW (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a source review perspective, the key questions are: "does the publication control who can write for it, and have some quality-assurance process to make sure that they know what they're talking about?", "does the publication have some kind of editorial control, particularly fact-checking, over what its contributors write?" and "if the publication does make a mistake, is it subject to the sort of regulation that would make it correct that?". We don't need to do a full deep-dive into the magazine's history, but if the answer to those (particularly the second) leans towards "no", that's cause to worry about it as a source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around on the archive link, I went to the issue 28, This article says there was a reporting team, and this shows the editor-in-chief was Elena Shramko. SusunW (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're fine on balance of probabilities, then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some foreign-language titles are translated, others aren't.

working on it.

I think they all have translations now? SusunW (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what the citation to de Maistre is communicating: it seems to be written in two halves? I think his name would be better parsed as Joseph de Maistre, with de Maistre as the surname but alphabetised under M.

Okay, done. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bit I find confusing is that given in markup as |quote=Сперанская Елизавета Андреевна (ок. 1778—1799) — урожденная Элизабет Стивенс. Жена М. М. Сперанского (с. 1798) [Speranskaya Elizaveta Andreevna (c. 1778–1799) — born Elizabeth Stevens. Wife of MM Speransky (since 1798). Is that "quote" the title (or other referent) of the letter? If so, suggest using "chapter" so that the Wiki markup will make that clearer (it won't actually use the word chapter anywhere it can be seen). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote of a footnote that appears on that page which confirms that Elizabeth (should have been Henryeva or the like) is often referred to as Elizaveta Andreevna. Clearly not a chapter. SusunW (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. That seems like it would be better placed with the citation, rather than the work's entry in the bibliography, or even in an explanatory footnote? Perhaps we could put that quote into some context: something like de Maistre clarifies that the Elizaveta Andreevna referred to in the letter is Elizabeth Stevens: "[quote and translation]"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've done it. SusunW (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Births, Marriages and Deaths" citation throws a Harvard error as unused.

I've deleted it. It referred to Eliza Stephen's brother Joseph Planta's daughter, but then that made me realize that in the section about her marriage to Henry Stephens we don't have the births of Elizabeth, Frances, or Marianne. Kind of critical because in my Russia section, I start with she came without her children, so obviously we need to identify them first, IMO. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date and page ranges take an endash, not a hyphen. I've fixed a few of these, but it's worth casting an eye for any more (particularly in e.g. the titles of works).

I ran the script program that is supposed to fix that. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strathmore, Mary Eleanor Bowes,,, Countess of.png: the Commons page says this was published before 1928, but only gives the source as the museum that holds it. Could we have some proof of that publication? It's clearly old enough but the question is whether it was published in print or on public display early enough to meet the copyright requirements.
Working on this one. Definitely was published in 1998 [4], but I don't have proof of an earlier publication yet. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bowes died in 1800, so clearly it was made prior to then. The artist died in 1862 and was British. It is on display at the Bowes Museum, which opened in 1892, so it went on public display (or does British law require an actual "in print" publication?) way before 1989 and the guide says "If the work was published before 30 August 1989 and the author died more than 20 years before publication then copyright expires 50 years after publication" 50 years after the death of the painter would be 1912, so it was clearly out of copyright on the URAA date and seems to me like we could just tag it {{PD-1996}}, or am I missing something? SusunW (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right to me. For artworks, putting it on public display where people can make copies is the rough standard for publication, but it's not totally clear in law. Essentially, displaying it in a public park is definitely publication, displaying it in your basement definitely isn't, and everything else is a judgement call as to which is closer. In general, museum display counts. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then that's good and we can use that same type of rationale with the others. Just wasn't sure about the UK. Russia is clear {{PD-Russia-1996}} says, "The author died before January 1, 1942" so we can I think use that in conjunction with the PD-1996 US tag. Give me a minute and I'll worth through these. SusunW (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - one small quibble here. The artwork has a frame, which means that we can't use PD-ART: that only works for 2D images, and works with a three-dimensional frame (meaning one that casts any shadow) need the photograph itself to be published in a way that would make it PD. The easy way to solve this would be to crop the image to remove the frame: I'm happy to do this if you're not sure how. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no clue how to do that. WP technology is baffling to me. Please feel free to do what needs to be done. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try swapping in File:Mary Eleanor Bowes Cropped.png. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done and added alt-text. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wealthy coal owner: presumably he owned coal mines or similar, rather than just (as most people at the time did) having some coal in his house?
It is a technical term, see Glossary of coal mining terminology#O. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an argument here that 'technical term' is another word for WP:JARGON, which we should normally try to minimise (particularly in an article which isn't explicitly about the coal industry). At the very least, I'd make a WL to that definition that you've pointed out (using an anchor if the page doesn't already have one). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinked for now. I see the difficulty of using specialist terminology, but I don't really wish to delve too deeply into the economic structures of coal mining in England right now (although I should probably do so eventually, given that I live in a coal area). —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider disambiguating She in the second sentence (there's little real chance of confusion, but the last woman mentioned was Gilbert).
Yes. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eliza's father Andrew Planta was engaged: as she only had one, comma off: Eliza's father, Andrew Planta, was engaged...
Right. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and Elizabeth Planta, Eliza's elder sister, as governess: if we're going to use the passive, we need to repeat was engaged, was employed or similar: otherwise, go with George Bowes employed Eliza's father Andrew Planta as Mary Eleanor's French teacher, and Elizabeth Planta, Eliza's elder sister, as her governess.
I think I have only passive voice and no clear actor in the sources, and would prefer not to just assume it was George Bowes making all decisions. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Bowes, Eliza's elder sister Elizabeth Planta, and various teachers: cut Eliza's elder sister, as we've already introduced Planta.
Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Planta became a lady's companion to Mary Eleanor's mother Mary Bowes, returning to Bowes's employ as governess of her children in 1774: a little unclear as to which Bowes' children are under discussion here.
It is "Mary Eleanor" now. I'm trying hard to not use first names for women and last names for men (although several sources do so; Moore usually refers to MEB, whom I call "Bowes", as "Mary", and after the marriage calls my Stoney "Bowes"). It isn't as easy as I'd like it to be. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider briefly introducing Bowes in the lead (something like "the English aristocrat...").
Added. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given present-day sensitivities, talking about Kyiv among "various Russian cities" might jar a little. Perhaps "various cities of the Russian Empire"? After all, we wouldn't say "Delhi and other British cities" for the same time period. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all were cities I think, so "places in the Russian Empire" now. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, this kind of discussion of someone's family and siblings would normally come at the end of a biographical article, in a section like "Personal life". I'd suggest moving everything after "Several of Eliza's sisters..." into that section and then putting the remainder of this one together with the section on Bowes.
I disagree, the story is (a) that so many of her sisters were also governesses and (b) that her family was closely connected to the Bowes household; we need to know about Elizabeth and Joseph for this to work. All of this is early life and little connected to her later life after her daughter married Speransky; it should not be near the end. If you think the section is too weak, I could try to add more about the little we know about the sisters' education (they spoke several languages, and probably had some knowledge of music; eight year old Eliza might have met Mozart, but all of this is discussed more in the other family members' articles). —Kusma (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fair enough. I'd definitely put in that stuff about education and Mozart: that's a cracking DYK hook, if nothing else! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't manage to fix this today (so I'll need to ask for more patience), but I will add the multilinguality of the family (at least English and Romansh were definitely spoken by all, French, German and Italian were likely spoken by all, and some of them spoke Latin and Greek) and the little else I know about their education. I'll have to try and search through my sources again to see whether it is known if Mozart interacted with anyone but her father. —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about languages and Mozart. —Kusma (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reads nicely. I'm torn on the famous Mozart's name: part of me wants to cut it down to "and his son Wolfgang", since you wouldn't normally repeat the surname, but as that Mozart is so much more famous by his surname only, I think that would be a tradeoff for clarity (and arguably break MOS:NOFORCELINK. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In July 1776, Elizabeth Planta was dismissed from her service with Mary Eleanor Bowes, receiving a generous payment of £2000, possibly to stop her from discussing Bowes' affair with George Gray and her pregnancy and abortion with Bowes' mother or her first husband's family: dropping the affair in mid-sentence rather reads as burying the lede to me: I'd give it more introduction so it doesn't read as if we're assuming the reader already knew about it.
Yes, I'll try to rewrite this to put the Gray affair first. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth's younger sister Eliza Planta was then hired as new governess: the new or a new.
Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a small MOS:SANDWICH between the pictures of Bowes and Stoney on my display (Vector 2022).
Expanded a bit, which should fix this issue. You may need to read this again. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone. I suspect that I've got one of the smaller screens that most people will use, so this should cover at least the vast majority of readers. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Note a: having written articles on pre-Gregorian calendar Greece, I sympathise. If there's any case in which we can be reasonably sure which calendar is used (e.g. because the source itself was written somewhere that used the Julian calendar at the time), suggest using the OldStyleDate template to clarify. More generally, it strikes me that practically everything in the first part of the story takes place in Britain after 1752, so it's practically certain that we're in the Gregorian calendar: I'd suggest only introducing the Julian Calendar as a concept when we move to Russia (see Ludwig Ross for an article that negotiates the same problem). Why "England" not "Britain" in the footnote?

The note is where it is because I thought it important that the issue be noted immediately. I've changed it to Britain, but in actuality the source uses both. We aren't 100% sure what calendar for her death date. Probably OS, but not sure as the Bunge family were German but living in "Russia". I'm not sure about moving it, but I'm fine if it does. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
England and Scotland changed from Julian to Gregorian at the same time, but the start of the year was changed at a different time (1600 versus 1752). This is irrelevant for the present article, but it is one of the many ways in which old style dates can trip people up. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Is there any ambiguity on whether e.g. her birth date uses the Gregorian or Julian calendar? My point is that I think we're implying doubt on the British dates where none really exists, but please correct me if that's wrong. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of the British dates are certainly Gregorian, and most if not all of the Russian dates are Julian, actually, with doubts only when Westerners report on Russian dates. Perhaps we need to work on that footnote to clarify this. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my sense of things. In my Greek articles, I've generally solved that problem by using that OldStyleDate template whatever the calendar system in the source (just make sure you put the date in the right place): here, as we can assume our readers will generally use the Gregorian, we can at least wait to introduce the calendar problem until we get to Russia. Again from anecdotal experience, most of the time when I've had this problem of wondering which calendar a source used for a Greek event, they almost always used the Old Style date that Greek people/newspapers etc would have given, but I think it's wise to be clear if we don't know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened the footnote to remove some of the doubt inherent in it. I think we should assume Julian for everything from Russia. —Kusma (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a tricky one. The footnote essentially leaves it up to the reader how daring they wish to be: I think the difficulty is that the judgement really hinges on the source, but the reader is generally (or at least primarily) exposed to the subject matter, and I doubt it's the case that every date for the Russian section hinges entirely on a Russian-language source. To me, we're in fine territory for GA at least, but this might be an area to think again about (essentially: can we do better than assumption?) if taking the article any further. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible she had an affair with Stoney and carried his child when: are both of these things only "possibles"? This seems to come from Moore: does she give any sense of why this might have been the case (was it a rumour going around at the time?) This echoes in the body text.
It is very likely that she was pregnant, but we do not definitely know who the father was. Moore seems certain it was Stoney but there is only circumstantial evidence. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there enough evidence to separate that out, and be more confident on the fact of the pregnancy? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about the presentation in the body first, then see what can be done here. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Moore is the only source who presents this pregnancy as fact, and she gives no sources confirming the birth, name, or fate of the child, I would not want to be more confident here. It would of course be perfectly scandalous if Jane Elisabeth, the mother of Bagreeff-Speranski, had been Stoney's daughter, but I find it difficult to believe she wasn't baptised until she was over a year old. (The baptismal register unfortunately does not give any details about dates of birth). —Kusma (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
his friend, Captain Perkins Magra, the brother of James Matra, who had taken part in the first voyage of James Cook.: grammatically, this says that Perkins had sailed with Cook, though I think we mean that James had. Suggest "whose brother, James Matra, had taken part...".
Rephrased as part of a general moving around of things. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family

Employment by Mary Eleanor Bowes

What do the square brackets in Marianne Marg[are]t mean?
Suggest wikilinking hush money as possibly a little obscure (I'm thinking here especially of non-native speakers). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~using a "black inky kind of medicine": sounds nasty. Who is being quoted here?~~
Mary, added. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Perkins Magra: per MOS:HONORIFIC, we don't normally use people's titles, ranks etc in apposition with their names: suggest "Perkins Magra, a captain in the Royal Navy" (which is more informative anyway). He went on to have a diplomatic career but I suspect hadn't embarked on that yet?
He was in the Army, not the Navy, where he rose another rank or two before becoming a diplomat. Fixed. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was my bad inference from seeing that he'd been writing to Nelson. This report of his death gives his various regiments (he ended up a Major, one rank up from Captain), but none of them are particularly interesting. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
£2000: we're inconsistent about whether to use a comma here. Personally, I would, especially if we've got larger amounts in the article. Can we give any sense of how much money this was: is it "generous" like a big Christmas bonus, or inordinately extravagant (my sense is towards the latter)?
It is pretty extravagant. {{Inflation}} gives £2,000 (equivalent to £340,231 in 2023); other points of comparison are Frederica's annual salary of £100 (described by Elizabeth as "mediocre") or the £6,000 John Hawkesworth received in 1773 for An Account of the Voyages in "one of the most lucrative literary contracts of the eighteenth century."

I have used the inflation template; Moore calls the amount "sufficient funds to keep her comfortable for life".
Is it worth putting that quotation in, perhaps in a footnote? It's concise and very informative. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A small grammar quibble (another unintuitive quirk of English): neither these £2,000 or this £2,000 quite sits correctly: this sum, this payment (both singular) or similar is better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~or her first husband's family: whose first husband? I'd suggest replacing with the name.~~
Added. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stoney's life story was later adapted by William Makepeace Thackeray as that of the anti-hero in The Luck of Barry Lyndon. He was later described as a "schemer" who had come to London with the purpose to seduce and marry the wealthy Bowes: grammatically ambiguous even though there's no real chance of confusion: He really ought to be Barry Lyndon or Thackery, but we mean Stoney. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Described by Bowes's biographer Wendy Moore as "wily, flighty, and promiscuous", she quickly became an important and trusted companion to her mistress: two quibbles here. Firstly, this seems a bit of a non sequitur: being flighty, wily and promiscuous would seem a reason not to take someone as your trusted companion. Secondly, that description smells rather strongly of sexism: I certainly can't imagine those last two adjectives being applied to a man in the same way. Are we absolutely certain that this description is both justified and helpful?
Removed the quote. Moore uses this mostly to contrast Eliza with her "prim" elder sister Elizabeth; I tried to use it to add some colour, but I see your point. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other less good sources do not make so much distinction between the sisters; here they are just "equally poisonous". —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the Irish lieutenant: I'd suggest clarifying exactly what we mean by lieutenant: in particular, army or navy (the former, but do we know, for instance, his regiment?) His article has a bit of a side-plot where he pretended to be a captain, which might be worth noting if that pretence was significant to his relationship with Bowes.
Army indeed, but I think the only relevance of that to the story is that this is how he became friends with Magra. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stoney's article described him as Anglo-Irish, which is (and was) quite substantially different from Irish (the Duke of Wellington, also born in Ireland, famously quipped that being born in a stable didn't make you a horse). Given the political sensitivities around being British, Irish etc in Ireland, I'd make absolutely certain that we're following HQRS here.
Certainly a Protestant from an English family settled in Ireland. Sources tend to point out his Irishness more than the family's English background, though. Is "Irish-born" acceptable? —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real can of worms: I think what you've said there ("[a Protestant] from an English family settled in Ireland") is the best way to put it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~When Bowes and Gray became formally engaged in St Paul's Cathedral in August or September 1776,: presumably she divorced the former Lyon beforehand?~~
He died. Seems I need to spend more time on MEB's story here to make this comprehensible. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely: you might want to separate out John's death so that we have the 'correct' chronology of departure -> initial affair -> death -> pregnancy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Robinson Stoney arrived in London, scheming to seduce and marry the wealthy Bowes: introduce Stoney briefly. Scheming is a little non-NPOV and reads a little like a Jane Austen novel.
Well, Moore writes "Stoney set out for London purely ... with the aim of seducing the Countess of Strathmore ... the sheer intricacy of Stoney's scheming ..." Arnold says "Stoney was essentially a schemer". I have added a few words of introduction and namedropped Barry Lyndon. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Barry Lyndon addition. To be safe, if we're going to use a word like "scheming", I'd make sure we do so in an objective and verifiable way: something like "Stoney has been described as a "schemer" who had come to London entirely to seduce Bowes". We can, after all, prove with total certainty that he has been described as such. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked in this direction. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONFREE would really like us to attribute in text, though I'll admit to not always following that rule myself. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think in-text attribution is necessary for a single word. Attribution could hide that this is the consensus opinion. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, though who's the authority identifying it as the consensus? If it's us as editors, we're close to the OR line. If it's multi-cited, we've got a reasonable argument that the NFREE benefit of naming the sources doesn't justify the tradeoffs of doing so in terms of verbosity and taking the reader away from the point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited to three different sources. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely; I think we're fine here, though consider using SFNM to make the text more readable; it transfers clutter from the body text - which everyone reads - to the footnotes section, which almost nobody reads. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that the response to Bowes' query (Bowes was pretending to be a grocer's widow) whether she should marry "a brewer or a sugar-boiler" indicated the advantages of Stoney over Gray.: I'm doubly in suspense here: what was the response, and how did brewers and sugar-boilers relate to these two men?
The answer has not been recorded. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm being dense, but I really don't see what she meant by the two professions: was Gray in the beer or sugar business? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is mostly that Bowes is pretending to be of a much lower class and asking her question about her lower class avatar's possible suitors, to which the fortune-teller likely gave a very insightful answer hinting at Stoney's features instead of just saying "marry the brewer". Bowes was superstitious and the skeptic Magra had also vouched for the fortune-teller, so this episode may have been important as part of Stoney's scheme. I present it here as an example of Eliza working for Stoney. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see: so it's not that Gray's the brewer and Stoney's the sugar-boiler (or vice-versa), but the fortune-teller says something like "I hear army lieutenants are good", taking a third option that's clearly Stoney? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think she is asking the fortune-teller "whom should I marry?" and gets an answer that says "Stoney". I can drop the brewer and sugar-boiler if you think they are too confusing. —Kusma (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good but needs fleshing out that she askes a coded question and receives a coded answer: it might be that the best approach is to simply be unsubtle and gloss something like ...when asking whether to marry a brewer or a sugar-boiler (an oblique means of asking for advice on her romantic situation), the fortune-teller answered with a double-entendre intended to indicate the advantages of Stoney. Perhaps "double-entendre" will give the wrong idea, though... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded slightly, but I do not wish to say "double entendre" without knowing what was said. It is now explicit that we do not know the answer. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it now should make (enough) sense to a first-time reader, though I must admit to having spent so long thinking about it that it's difficult to get my head in the right place to judge! Nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you see now, UndercoverClassicist, why we broke it into two sections and gathered info for months before we started writing it. So many complicated details and intrigues to put in perspective in two different countries, with totally different players, laws, court politics, etc. IMO, Kusma, you've done a really good job of explaining the Bowes situation, but I too am very close to the info, so maybe not be best judge. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage to Henry Stephens

He was a widower and had some debts: had some debts reads as slightly casting aspersions: don't (and didn't) most people have some debts? It sounds as though we're meant to take away that he's a bit of a wrong 'un, but I worry that that implication is really only coming from the editorialising at this point.
Clarified by giving the amount (both a realistic one and a much higher one given by Parker without any evidence). He wasn't an acceptable match in the eyes of the Planta family. —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whether Henry Stephens was aware of his wife's pregnancy; Eliza herself later denied claims that advertisements had been placed to find a husband for her: the semicolon implies that these two sentences fit together, but it isn't immediately clear how (presumably, if he had been aware, he would have placed the advertisements?)
There is no longer a semicolon. I am a bit unsure whether I can turn the pregnancy claims down further; I personally do not find Moore's conclusions from her evidence fully convincing. (The strongest-looking evidence for Eliza being pregnant for long enough to be noticeable is a letter from Bowes's footman written in 1788, and she doesn't give a full quote from it). We do not have a name or a birth date for the child, and I haven't seen it mentioned in other reports —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasing like "Smith denied beating his wife" is one of the classic journalistic pitfalls (or nefarious tactics): it gives the strong implication that Smith was indeed beating his wife (see this possibly slightly mischevious example from the BBC recently). As we've currently phrased it, we've given the strong implication that Bowes did advertise in newspapers, or at least that it's a very live possibility. Is that the right thing to do here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible it is true, but I don't know how likely it is. The story comes from the 1788 report of the trial, where both sides present witnesses accusing most people on the other side of adultery (Eliza also denies the story of Stoney coming out of her bedroom at 5am). Moore takes away from this that Stoney and Eliza did indeed have a sexual relationship and deduces that this is part of making her one of his stooges. An alternative explanation would be that all of this is just unfounded accusations that are intended to make Eliza an untrustworthy witness at the trial. In any case, the 1788 source and Moore disagree on who placed the alleged advertisement; Moore claims it was Eliza, the original source says it was the Countess of Strathmore, i.e. Mary Eleanor Bowes. I have now put a compromise into the article, but I don't know how to get away from reporting that Eliza denied something. We are here in a part where we follow Moore's speculations about the pregnancy, and the denial is a (weak) piece of evidence for it. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps frame in the positive: something like "Rumours later circulated that Henry Stephens had placed advertisements [in the press?] for a new wife, though Eliza called them 'complete nonsense'"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether there were any such rumours at all, and in which quarters. All I know is the court report from the 1788 trial, where the court reporter paraphrased what Eliza said as "[She said t]hat she never knew of any advertisement being put into the papers, by Lady Strathmore, to procure her a husband." This was during cross-examination; the question she was asked is not reported. Moore uses this as part of her evidence for a pregnancy. I've moved this to a footnote. I will need to check some of the trial dates, though, as I may have accidentally mixed the 1788 trial in which Bowes won her fortune back from her husband and the 1789 divorce trial. There is a third trial in which Stoney was accused of kidnapping his wife. But all of that belongs in the articles about that unhappy couple, not so much here; I just need to sort out which trials the Stephens family attended (and the May 1788 trial is definitely among them). —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's fair. Seems an odd thing to say out of the blue (unless the lady doth protest too much) but, as you say, it's difficult to say too much more in the absence of the precise question.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In her Confessions: we tease at quite an interesting origin for this document, but it's still a bit mysterious at this stage. Quite a long quotation from a primary source: generally, the MOS advises against those unless there's a really compelling reason. Can it be cut to just the juiciest phrasing and the remainder paraphrased?
I have moved this one into a footnote. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ostensibly on his death bed after a staged duel: there's clearly some level of fakery going on here, but I'm not clear whether he was actually injured (but didn't die, despite predictions) or even whether the duel was real. If he faked one or the other... why?
The letters in the newspaper were fake, the duel was fake, the medical opinions were fake or used cheating. There are two versions of the story: either he did this so Bowes would marry him on his deathbed as a romantic gesture, or Bowes was in on the plan and this was the least reputation-damaging way for her to end the engagement with Gray. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification seen; happy here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stoney-Bowes: this is the former Stoney: is it worth clarifying when we mention his marriage, as we did for Lyon, that he (unusually) changed his name?
He did change his name to Bowes in February 1777. Maybe I'll just leave this out. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
suggest wl'ing by-election and getting the word "Parliament" or "parliamentary" in here somewhere for clarity.
done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A witness later claimed seeing Stoney leave Eliza's bedroom at 5 a.m. one morning after the election: claimed to have seen is grammatical here. Suggest also five o'clock one morning to avoid the tautology of a.m. one morning.
done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when they left the employment: not quite grammatical: left the family's employment?
done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another long quotation from the Confessions: again, suggest trimming and paraphrasing.
done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quite known what happened to cause Bowes to write in such terms about her previous intimate friends: better as It is not quite known what caused Bowes to write in such terms about her previously intimate friends.
done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1785, Bowes escaped from her abusive husband Stoney: another buried lede, I fear: back up a bit and explain how (and when) Stoney had been/become abusive.
He hit her, he tried to take her money, he raped the maids, the works. I am trying to say only what is needed about the Stoney-Bowes family, which is already quite a lot, so I just tried to separate this out. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a lovely man. I think the way it's currently framed here is good (though hope all that detail would find a place in Stoney's article?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, Eliza attempted to reconcile with Bowes and informed her about her daughter Mary's location and helping to remove her from Stoney's power: should be helped.
Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know, I am not the reviewer, but when I was doing the references, I realized the Henry Stephens section doesn't show when (or even that) they had Elizabeth, Frances, or Maryanne, which it should probably do, since the Russia part starts with the moved there without her children. SusunW (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should have them here. From what I can recall, the only sources we have about them are the primary church record sources and those that talk about their time in Russia. In particular, we have absolutely no idea what happened to the child Eliza was probably pregnant with when she married Henry. —Kusma (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I recall, we never figured out about that first kid, but there were two children that died. I think we're fine with primary, as it's only simple statements, we aren't drawing any conclusions. I can go back through the emails if you like. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be super helpful. I have difficulties finding anything in that massive email thread. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a lot of research before we started writing. Found the thread and sent you the links via email. SusunW (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, I added the children in what I thought was the most logical place, but feel free to move them or whatever. SusunW (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SusunW! From [5], I think it is "Marianna Margaret" or "Marianne Margaret", but there seem to be some transcription errors (later she seems to be Marianne). I am pretty certain "Margt" is just an abbreviation. It would be great to see a scan of the original source. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% sure it's either Margaret or Margaretta, but I did ask Paul but he said there wasn't anything in the records that clarified it. You know what a nightmare I had trying to send funds from Mexico via the US to him in the UK to get original scans. And he was really clear that the originals couldn't be shared. It'd probably only cost you £5, but because of minimum transaction amounts, I got them for the special

price of £10 and it only took 4 days to wire the overnight funds. SusunW (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the originals will help us all that much. From what we see online, it looks like "Margt" is an abbreviation, so I've expanded it out with brackets and used Marianne for consistency with the latter parts. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Governess for Russian nobility

Suggest moving Henri's death to the following paragraph, which covers other deaths in 1811.

My thought is that it would be confusing to reintroduce him later. There are already a lot of names to remember and I think it is easier on the reader to "dispatch" him after he is introduced since he is a very minor figure. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we want to keep biographies (especially) chronological, but this isn't a huge point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death and descendants

prepared to graduate in the middle of February 1824 implies that she didn't graduate: what happened here?

Speransky's letter says she was supposed to graduate in February. We don't have a source that says she did (or didn't). SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imberg was granted the Order of St. Stanislav in the 2nd degree: wikilink? Certainly good to explain what this was: was it a big deal?

I wikilinked and explained for merit. A big deal? You tell me , titles/medals mean nothing to me, but a lot of people put a lot of emphasis on them. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was wondering if we could say "Russia's highest order of merit", "awarded on the personal recommendation of the Tsar's chambermaid", or something to indicate its status. What we have is workable, I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a description of it's status, just a description of the medal itself. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot here on Speranskaya and her own descendants which, being uncharitable, I might suggest is out of scope for this article. Certainly, it's a bit odd to be including material on the grandson of someone's daughter in a biography of the great-grandmother.

I won't quibble if someone wants to cut some of it, but I would note that I have read many, many biographies of nobility on here which give descendants ad infinitum, mostly male, of course. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, though whether it should be true is another matter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, sourcing and references

I still need to do plagiarism, CLOP and TSI checks, which will follow after the main text of the article is more-or-less resolved. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As promised. Could I please have the quotation from the original source which supports:

Note 25:After the death of George Bowes in 1760, Mary Eleanor became heiress of a vast fortune. (Moore 2009: 29–30)
" Workmen had only just begun digging the foundations when George Bowes died on 17 September 1760, aged 59. [...] As the only heir of her father's vast estate, conservatively estimated at £600,000, [...] Mary Eleanor had become the richest heiress in Britain, perhaps even in Europe."
Note 60:It is not quite known what caused Bowes to write in such terms about her previously intimate friends (Parker 2006: 65)
"Those are strong words, especially when one remembers that they were spoken about a couple who had been the Countess’s intimate friends and had lived in her house on the most amicable terms for the best part of a year. Various conjectures have been made by both of Mary Eleanor’s previous biographers as to the basis for the quarrel, but neither seems to have homed in on Mahon’s story, which surely offers a probable solution." Mahon's story here is the one of Stoney coming out of Eliza's bedroom at 5am. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note 114:Speransky was a graduate of the Alexander Nevsky Seminary [ru] and had that year entered the civil service (Raeff 1957: 9, 15).

p. 9 "In 1790, as member of its first class, Speransky entered the Alexandro-Nevskii Seminary in St. Petersburg". p. 15, "Speransky eagerly welcomed this opportunity of following a new career… Early in January 1797, the former seminarian formally entered into the ranks of government service". SusunW (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with all of these on all fronts. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Earwig is happy and I have no concerns about plagiarism.

Image review

All good here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Template

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct: Y

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Y

Verifiable with no original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Y

(b) 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): Y

(c) it contains no original research: Y

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism: Y

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: Y

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Y

Neutral

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Y

Stable

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Y

Illustrated

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: Y

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Y

Overall

Pass: this really stands out for the depth and quality of research by its two main authors, whose level of scholarship is an example to all of us on this site. In commending them for their work and congratulating them on the GA, I must also thank them for a stimulating and enjoyable review process, and for their timely, thoughtful and often extremely erudite responses to comments. Do please let me know if you decide to take it to FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your in-depth review, it was a pleasure to work with you. I am not sure about FAC; for "comprehensive" I feel I would need to find a way to present all of the remaining contradictions in the sources, and I am not sure I am up to that task at the moment. Perhaps I need to wait for further sources to be written, or work in depth on the Stoney-Bowes saga first. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written
Verifiable with no original research
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.