Talk:Lady Henrietta Berkeley

Lady Henrietta Berkeley 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: January 28, 2022. (Reviewed version).

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.

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

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

A fact from Lady Henrietta Berkeley appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Lady Henrietta Berkeley (pictured) had an affair with her older sister's husband, claimed in court to have married his servant, and then fled with both of them to Cleves?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Henrietta Berkeley.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Lady Henrietta Berkeley

... that Lady Henrietta Berkeley (pictured) had an affair with her older sister's husband, claimed in court to have married his servant and then fled with them both to Cleves? Source: Berkeley, Lady Henrietta [Harriett] in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/68002
- ALT1:... that Lady Henrietta Berkeley (pictured) had an affair with her older sister's husband, then eloped with him from London to Prussia? Source: Berkeley, Lady Henrietta [Harriett] in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/68002

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/CBUVT

Created by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 21:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Article is new enough, long enough, and cited to reliable sources. Hooks are interesting. QPQ done. Image is free and used in the article. Article is not a COPYVIO, Earwig only flags titles of sources. Article is neutral and otherwise policy compliant. However, the hooks are not accompanied with an inline citation after that sentence in the article, as is needed. This needs done before I can approve the hook. Hog Farm (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hiya thanks for the review, i've directly referenced the hooks now Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem appears to have been corrected. Hog Farm (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk · contribs) 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this shortly Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, initial comments:

The first paragraph of the lead avoids mentioning Grey's name until right at the end, so it has to refer to him by various epithets ("her elder sister's husband", "her lover") instead. I think it would probably be clearer to refer to him as "her elder sister's husband, Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville on the initial mention, and then simply "Grey" thereafter.
In fact, on that note, he wasn't yet Earl of Tankerville at that point. Should he be referred to as "Ford Grey, Lord Grey of Werke" instead?
- I think my rationale for not naming him in the first sentence was that all too often women are defined by their husbands/lovers but clarity is foremost so I also wouldn't mind to change it. On that note, yes he was Ford Grey, Lord Grey of Warke then became Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville later on so probably the former is better ... although nowadays he is known as Ford Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville ... it's tricky with these changing titles. Mujinga (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately in this case she does seem to be notable solely for her relationship with Grey! I do think putting his name upfront would make the lead read somewhat more clearly, though I see why you didn't initially. I also think that we should call him Lord of Warke rather than Earl of Tankerville in the lead – changing titles are confusing either way, but I think they're more confusing used anachronistically. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, I've added Lord Grey of Warke to the first sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her father, George Berkeley, 1st Earl of Berkeley, decided to prosecute her lover – in fact he didn't just decide, but did prosecute Grey!
- true, changed to "sued" in lead and body Mujinga (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Berkeley was a virgin and an unmarried minor. – none of the sources cited in this paragraph seem to support "virgin", and I have no idea how we can possibly know that for a fact at a remove of several centuries.
- good spot! it's in cobbett page 130 Mujinga (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh, court records? This is making my use of primary sources radar ping wildly. I'd suggest either cutting "virgin" (secondary sources don't seem to report it, suggesting a possible due weight issue), or at least qualifying it with something like "reported in court to be" – I don't know that we should uncritically accept George Berkeley's claims that his daughter was Really Chaste and Innocent, I Swear, here! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see your point, deleted the sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
she sent another sister (Lady Arabella) to check for evidence in Berkeley's room at Berkeley House (later Devonshire House) in London the source cited says Arabella checked "her sister's" (presumably Henrietta's) room.
- Yes Berkeley here stands for Henrietta Berkeley. Is it not clear enough? Could change "sent another sister" to "sent her sister" Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one's a failure of my reading comprehension – for some reason I had read "in Grey's room" where you (correctly!) write "in Berkeley's room". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The now pregnant Berkeley fled with him to the Netherlands in June – the DNB entry for Ford Grey says that she was pregnant, but the one for Henrietta herself merely says that she was "rumoured" to be pregnant.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- oh yeah that's a good spot. hmmm. the bouchard source says "Henrietta was then said to have been 4 months pregnant and unwell: according to a lampoon at the time she subsequently ‘scap’t great danger at the birth of her child’ in Cleve." but I'd expect ODNB to be authoritative so I'm unsure what to do when the two entries are in conflict. could add "reportedly" and add the bouchard on that sentence? Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be inclined to change it to something like "Berkeley, reportedly pregnant, fled with him...", and cite it to the ODNB entry for Berkeley. You could add an endnote explaining that the ODNB says she was pregnant in its entry on Grey, but that she was rumoured to be pregnant in its entry on Berkeley if you think the discrepancy is worth discussing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool I've changed it to reportedly and added a footnote, since I think "reportedly" needs an explanation Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Caeciliusinhorto thanks for the careful reading. all comments answered, some with queries Mujinga (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the GA criteria, you're basically fine on points 4-6 (neutrality, stability, images). Point 3 (broad in coverage) is fine – considering how little reliable sources say about Berkeley's life, you've managed to write a remarkably thorough article. I have one final concern regarding sourcing: the ODNB is obviously a reliable source of the highest quality. The other sources I am less sure of. Bayly is essentially a primary source and needs to be used with caution: see my comment above on that. Reynolds looks like a questionable source to me: it's super dated, which might be okay if it were by a historian, but he was apparently a journalist and penny dreadful author. It's probably okay to cite for Reynolds' opinion, but there is surely a better source for what Grey was actually charged with? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- yes the ODNB is def the authoritative source here, and I've added that to the court charge paragraph. so the only Thomas Bayly Howell ref is to the transcription itself and George William MacArthur Reynolds is being used for two flowery quotes. the first one probably could be cut on the grounds of being too flowery, the second one i think is a decent opinion to end the article Mujinga (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, all looks good. I'm not opposed to the quotes on principle – they give good colour to the article! I just want to make sure we're not relying on sensational 19th century reportage for matters of actual fact. I'm going to promote this now. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]