Talk:Theodosia Ivie

Good article nomination

I did not write this article, but I worked on it and thoroughly enjoyed doing so. Seems well-researched and interesting Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alanna the Brave (talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this nomination. Comments to follow over the next few days! Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Alrighty -- this article certainly meets some of the GA criteria: it's fairly broad in its coverage, the sole illustration is relevant and properly tagged, and the article seems adequately neutral and stable (some continuing changes, but no editing wars). Earwig's tool shows no online copy-vio problems. However, I have a number of concerns about prose/MOS, sourcing and citations, which also makes it difficult to fully assess the article for copy-vio issues or original research. I'll list my concerns below. I think these issues will likely require a substantial amount of time and effort to address, so I've decided to fail this nomination. I encourage the nominator to keep working on the article -- they may also wish to consider a peer review in future, before re-nominating. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Prose/MOS

• The lead section should be expanded to more fully summarize the main points of the article -- right now, it's very short and focuses primarily on one of Ivie's land disputes in her later years. There's definitely other info that could be included.
• Currently, the sections of Ivie's life are not presented chronologically. We jump into "Land disputes" without any helpful background knowledge about Ivie, and then gradually go backwards in time, which is confusing. The "Portrayal in fiction" section also appears before the actual end of Ivie's life story ("Downfall"), which doesn't entirely make sense. I recommend restructuring the article by beginning with Ivie's family and early life, then progressing onwards from there (and putting "Portrayal in fiction" at the very end).
• Throughout the article, I'm seeing enormous paragraphs, which may make it more difficult for readers to locate information. The paragraphs should be better broken up to separate different topics.

Citations

• Inline citations

1. While most of the article's content appears to have a citation attached, I'm still seeing a number of uncited sentences (often at the end of paragraphs). The "Portrayal in fiction" section also looks like it's missing citations: I find it hard to believe that divorce records from 1676 (the only source referenced) would also confirm information about fictional portrayals of Ivie in a 17th-century play and 20th-century story. There may be other areas as well.
2. All of the direct quotations should have a citation referenced immediately afterwards.
3. I did a spot check using two of the only readily-online sources referenced: Pollock (1989) and Cobbot (1811). Although Pollock is cited in discussion of Ivie's childhood and family, the source itself does not mention Ivie or her family in any way, which means the citation is incorrect and the Wikipedia content has no obvious sourcing. The Cobbot source appears to be accurate, although the page numbers cited could be better clarified.
4. Because so much of the sourcing is off-line, I (or any other reviewer) would probably need to gain access to at least a few more items (or scans) before feeling comfortable enough to give the article a clean pass on copy-vio issues.

• References list:

1. Some sources, such as Proudler (2018), have been incorrectly duplicated.
2. Many sources are inconsistently formatted, with info such as the author/year/publisher listed in varying ways. Examples: Proudler (2018), The Stepkin Family of Tudor London (2018), O'Down (2011) and Jenkins (1949). A number of citation entries seem to combine multiple sources of information.
3. Several full book sources are cited, but they don't specify page numbers or page ranges (which makes it much harder for a reader or reviewer to locate the original information). Preferably, the specific page numbers should be included with the in-line citation when the source is referenced.

Land disputes

This article misunderstands the Act 27 Hen. VIII c.35.

First, here is an accessible link to the Act (there is no need to cite a paper document buried in the National Archives):

"An Act concerning the assurance of the moeity of London [?] lately inned by Cornelius Vanderdelf unto Richard Hill and his heirs". The Statutes of the Realm printed by Command of King George III. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall (1963 reprint). 1536. Retrieved 21 February 2021..

It can be seen that it is not accurate to say the 130 acres went to her family. The 130 acres were to be divided equally between (1) the successors to Corenlius Vanderdelf (i.e. her family) and (2) the previous owners of the marsh. An elaborate procedure was laid down for dividing the marsh into two halves and awarding the moeities by lot.

This was not done, because the dignitaries tasked with the division were too busy. A further Act, 35 Hen. VIII c.9, link here, said so, and appointed a fresh set of dignitaries to act. We are not told what happened next.

The upshot, however, is that on the cited sources the Stepkin family were entitled to 65 undefined acres only (and not 130 acres with defined metes and bounds). This is important, for had the Stepkins indeed been entitled to all the lands between the Ratcliff Highway and the Thames going as far east as Ratcliff, Ivie was bound to defeat Neale without an elaborate trial.Ttocserp 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have to re-read and digest. I will very likely have questions Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another complication is that the area measures much more than 130 acres, at leasr today: Embanking of the tidal Thames#East London

Ttocserp 09:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)