# Talk:Mary Dudley

I haven't read the entire article yet, but what strikes my eye as needing work is the heading Dudley daughter and Sidney wife. That looks very awkward and unencyclopedic. I think it should read: Family and marriage. The Serving Elizabeth I heading should perhaps be changed to: In the service of Elizabeth I. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally named it "Family and marriage", but there is much more now in that section, while the children and siblings also figure in the next section. I have tried "Education, marriage, attainder", but didn't like it. Any further alternatives to "Early life" or "Early life up to 1558" are most welcome! Regarding the other: She served her sovereign, but she wasn't even paid. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Dudley daughter and Sidney wife is a poor substitute. Why not break it up into sections: Family, Marriage and issue? I am not criticising the article, in fact, it's very well-written. The headings are the problem.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. In fact, too short sections tend to have problems passing, and in this case the first at least has a natural scope (the Dudley/Sidney thing is alluding to this: the Sidney connection saved her from the full consequences of being a Dudley). I'll continue to look for a clearer title. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Changed to "Family and early years of marriage". Buchraeumer (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Dudley, Lady Sidney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I will review this article today. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Her copy of Edward Hall's Chronicles she annotated in French
This sounds awkward. Perhaps reword? Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done
According to Lady Jane Grey it was Mary Sidney who, on 9 July 1553, called upon her to bring her to Syon House, the place where she was informed that she was Queen of England according to King Edward's will.
The phrasing of this sentence is a little confusing if someone wasn't familiar with Jane Grey's history. Maybe slightly reword to make it clearer Grey and not Dudley is being referred to? Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Explained that Lady Jane was her sister-in-law and related to Edward VI.
In 1556 Mary Sidney went with her husband to Ireland, where her first daughter, Mary Margaret, was born. Queen Mary acted as godmother, but the child died at "one year and three quarters old".[11] Meanwhile, the infant Philip stayed behind at Penshurst[12] until his mother returned from Ireland in September 1558.[1] In January of the same year she had been restored in blood by Parliament, when the Dudleys' attainder had been lifted.[13]
Perhaps move last sentence to beginning of paragraph, to maintain chronological order. Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I rephrased a bit, but I think her "restoration" by parliament makes a good close to the whole section, in a sense pointing to her new life under Elizabeth. It only happened a few months before she returned from Ireland.
On Elizabeth I's accession in November 1558 Mary Sidney became an extraordinary Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, an unsalaried position.[14]
Use of "extraordinary". Was that a normal term of her office, or are you using an adjective to describe her? Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It refers to the office, but I changed it.
Via Lady Sidney Elizabeth discreetly indicated her earnest interest in marrying the Archduke—when she cooled down again within days, Mary Sidney felt betrayed and was angry at her brother and the Queen.[16] The Spanish ambassador, in his turn, was piqued that she used an Italian interpreter when she needed none.[17]
Awkward wording, particularly with the last sentence. Was it Mary or the queen who was using an interpreter? Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done Expanded.
On the passage, Lady Sidney lost her jewels and fine clothes in a shipwreck.[1] 
More information on the shipwreck is needed. Was Mary on the ship, or were her items on a separate vessel? Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done Unfortunately there is not much on this, but I understand another vessel is meant.
A year later her health was in such a state that Henry Sidney believed he would soon have the chance to take a second wife.[1]
Perhaps change "chance" to "oppourtunity"? Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Sources look well-varied and reputable. Minor nitpick: Source 11 needs "pp," not "p". Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Overall a good article, albeit short. Will put on hold for seven days for replies and/or edits to my suggestions. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I expanded/added a few points. Thanks for reviewing! Buchraeumer (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Pass for GA status. Well done with the article! Ruby2010 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Buchraeumer (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is another one of those articles on British nobility that uses vague language like "Sir Henry Sidney and his wife had become somewhat disillusioned and embittered ...". According to who? And what does somewhat mean? The article is full of statements like these, which are presented as fact, not someone's interpretation of historical documents, and sound like chatter too. Hekerui (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

According to whom? According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and the author of the forthcoming volume on Elizabeth I in the Yale English Monarchs series, as the inline citation makes clear. The ensuing paragraph illustrates their grievances. All "historical facts" are "someone's interpretation of historical documents". Buchraeumer (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)