Jump to content

Talk:Michael Cecil, 8th Marquess of Exeter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Cecil, 8th Marquess of Exeter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Roc0ast3r (talk · contribs) 21:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 08:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pick this one up. Shall do a chronological run through the article, followed by a summary. An example of the approach is here, [1]. You're welcome to respond to comments as I go, or at the end, when I will ping you. It'll be done over the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC) One immediate thought:[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Naming
  • Cecil is generally called "Cecil", as here; "Cecil's father", but sometimes "Michael", as here, "Michael was christened at the family's ranch". Consistency is needed. Second, why is he called, "Michael", his second name, and not "William", his first? If, as per his father, "known until 1981 as Lord Martin Cecil", he prefers to use his second name, I think that should be explained. As, I think we need to make clear that Martin is William Martin Alleyne Cecil, 7th Marquess of Exeter.
Infobox
  • Looks fine.
Lead
Here, and elsewhere, the prose needs some work, and there are some areas where I think we need a fuller summary of the body:
  • "Born in Kamloops" - not so well known that it doesn't need amplifying; "Born in Kamloops in British Colombia";
  • "received education in rural Canadian and formal English schools" - missing the definite article, "he", and "received" is odd. Also, what are "formal" English schools? Something like, "he attended schools in rural Canada, and in England...";
  • "After his graduation he moved to Hundred Mile House" - in England, you don't graduate from a secondary school, which Eton is, but from university. And I think it's worth explaining he went back to Canada. Something like, "After leaving school, he returned to Canada to 100 Mile House..." Both of these issues also need addressing in the first paragraph of the Life and career section;
  • "the Emissaries of Divine Light, which his father founded" - did he? Our article says it was founded by Lloyd Arthur Meeker. Also, I think we are missing a brief explanation of what this rather odd-sounding organisation was/is;
    •  Half done Although this article says that his father was a co-founder of the organisation, most articles I've found say that Meeker was the sole founder, so I changed it to say that. There does seem to be a varying description on what the organisation actually is however. This article says "commune", this one says "program", this other one just calls it "international", and this says "religious movement". Based on what the organisation actually is, I'm inclined to describe it as an "international religious organisation", but I'll wait for your opinion on that.  RONIN  TALK  20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead could benefit from a brief explanation as to what a British peer was doing in Canada, i.e. reference the 1912 purchase of the land by the 5th Marquess. This might do as a source.
  • "As of 2003, he resided in Oregon - maybe so, but we are 20 years on. This suggests he has now returned to Canada.
Life and career
  • "to manage the family's Bridge Creek Ranch, sized at around 15,000 acres (6,100 ha)" - here, I think we need a slightly fuller explanation as to why/how an English aristocratic family had ended up with a ranch in Canada.
  • "christened at the family's ranch later in 1935" - we've already been told it's the family ranch in the previous sentence. And "later" than what?
  • "formal English schools before going to Eton College. After graduating from Eton" - see comments in Lead section above.
  • "Following the death of Martin's brother, ownership of the family estate—Burghley House—was transferred to a charitable trust" and (next para.) "Cecil's uncle—David Cecil, 6th Marquess of Exeter—died in 1981. Because he had no sons to inherit his title, it went to David's brother, Martin, and he became the 7th marquess" - I find the chronology muddled and confusing here. Why are we told about the impacts/consequences of the death of the 6th Marquess in two separate paragraphs? I think we should cover in one place: the death of the 6th Marquess / the succession of the 7th, the implications for Cecil, later the 8th / and the transfer of Burghley House to a trust. I would also cover in this the 7th Marquess' second marriage, and two further children.
  • "Cecil got engaged to Nancy Meeker, son of Lloyd Arthur Meeker, in 1967, wedding later in the year" - I think we need an introduction to Lloyd Arthur Meeker. And "wedding" would be better as "marrying".
  • "inherited the leadership of the Emissaries of Divine Light" - I think here we need a fuller explanation of what this is. It's some kind of pseudo-scientific commune? And our article suggests it is not without its critics! Moreover, Cecil's involvement is again split over two para.s. We're told of disagreements, then a new para. talks about the business split with his sister, the we're back to him leaving the commune. Can't the first and last be grouped together in one para on Divine Light - its foundation by Meeker / its development by Cecil's father / Cecil's inheritance / Cecil's split and leaving?
  • "Cecil and his sister, Marina Castonguay" - isn't she his "half-sister", same father different mother?
  • "the family ranch—Bridge Creek Estate" - I think this needs updating. Sources such as this suggest Cecil sold it to the government of British Columbia in 2022 as part of a First Nations land settlement. Quite a significant development.
  • "According to a 2003 article" - again, I think we need some updating if at all possible. We can't really end a BLP with info. over twenty years old.

Update

[edit]

As it stands, I don't think we're meeting Criteria 1a or Criteria 3a. I think we need more on the family's presence in Canada / the Divine Light Commune / Cecil's life post-2003. And the prose/structure needs some work. Before I move on to look at Sourcing etc., will you be able to address these issues in a reasonable timeframe? Normally it's seven days. He's an interesting character, and it's an interesting article, but it needs some effort before it's GA standard. KJP1 (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I believe I've addressed all of your current comments as of now. While editing this article for the GAN, I was able to find more information, so I went ahead and added that, specifically in the second and fourth paragraphs.  RONIN  TALK  20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve done a very good, and speedy!, job of expansion and of ironing out the wrinkles in the prose/flow. I’ll now check the sources etc. and summarise the review. KJP1 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Useful re. Burghley KJP1 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Have been able to check almost every one, as they are mostly online. They check out for reliability and support the intended content. Have a look at this FT article on Burghley. I think it would be useful as additional support/explanation for the Burghley Trust at the end of the second para. of Life and career.
Templates and Categories
  • These look fine.

Review Summary

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    The prose is generally of a good standard. A few instances where I found the flow a little confusing have all been resolved by the nominator.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I think it meets all MoS requirements.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    It is accurate and well-supported by a range of reliable sources.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    I have checked every source, and am satisfied they are both reliable and support the intended content.
    c. (OR):
    No evidence of OR found.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig doesn't suggest any issues,[2] and I've done some spot-checking of sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    Three areas where I felt a bit more detail was needed have all been satisfactorilly addressed.
    b. (focused):
    It's suitably focussed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    All good.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    All good.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    It would obviously be good to have an image of the subject but we haven't so it is what it is.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Caption is fine.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Roc0ast3r - As said above, you've done a grand job in expanding the article/working through those areas where the prose/flow could be made a bit clearer. I've now done the Reference checks and am satisfied with those; and gone through the rest of the GA criteria (see above). So, unless there's anything else from your side, I'm ready to close this up as a Pass. I have attached an FT article which is interesting re. the Burghley House Trust. But, you may find it paywalled - although I managed to get in via a Google search - and it's not at all essential. Let me know if there's anything more. Best. KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: Thank you so very much for your review, I really appreciate it! I was able to find a bit of content from the FT source so I went ahead and added that. But I think that's all I have. Again, thanks for your review!  RONIN  TALK  20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Cecil,_8th_Marquess_of_Exeter&oldid=1288921628"