This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-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.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates 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.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts 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.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles
John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Hi, by a very roundabout route, I find you are working on a draft of an article I’ve planned to write for some time, that of John, last Lord Tredegar. You’ve done an excellent job of pulling such sources as there are together. Would you be interested in collaborating on it? There’s some work to be done but I’m reasonably confident it could be got over the AfC line. Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to find someone similarly interested in John's life, and thank you for your compliments on my draft. Yes - that does sound interesting. What are you thinking of contributing?
You've done the hard work of gathering the sources. What I think it needs is a copy-edit, as there are a few things that don't currently meet Wikipedia requirements. Examples include:
Use of the first name - He should be Morgan, not John, e.g. " John sells Ruppera";
Personal opinions - we tend not to use these, e.g. "This clever decision", "Sadly, it was to no avail";
Quotes - this shouldn't be italicised, e.g. "the sale was good for his bank balance, and his soul";
Capitalisation - there's a fair few words that shouldn't be capitalised, e.g. "Peer, Landowner, House, Golf"
Conversions - we have a template for these, e.g. "for £40,000 or £1,200,000 in today's money";
Sources - we can't use Youtube as a source, and I'm not sure it's adding much. Many of the others, e.g. the British Newspaper Archive ones, are paywalled, and this should be indicated. We should have page numbers for book sources, as well as the book details, ISBN etc, for this like Paul Busby.
Further reading - those that are used as Sources shouldn't be here;
Paragraphs - there are quite a few one-sentence para.s that should be combined. There's also a part where the chronology flips, Evan's mentioned twice.
Wording - there are a few oddities, e.g. "Retirement". From what, as he appears never to have worked?
If you like, I could have a go, and you could see what you think. If you don't like it, reversion is easy. KJP1 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - That is all really useful! As you suggest, I think it would be more convenient for the both of us if you corrected my errors, to avoid constant messaging back-and-forth.
With regards to the Paul Busby book citation, that can be replaced with the YouTube podcast citation (also by Paul Busby), for ease.
Although I agree with all of your other suggestions, I am keen to keep the YouTube citation. Although it is social media, and therefore arguably less reliable, it is a podcast on the history of the Morgans and Tredegar, by Paul Busby and Goff Morgan - both notable historians. Furthermore, all information in the podcast would have been thoroughly, and based off of Newspaper articles and other reliable sources.
Perhaps, if it has to be removed, it could be added to the "further reading" section, as it does include a lot of information regarding John's life.
Give me a day, and you can see what you think. The trouble with YouTube is that it’s not really a WP:Reliable source, but let’s see. KJP1 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. Are Paul Busby and Goff Morgan academic historians? I like their podcasts, although they are a little too long for my taste!, but had understood they were more local enthusiasts than professional historians. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure. Both proclaim to be "historians" in all of their profiles, but no mention of whether academic. I look forward to see the results of your work!
By the way, I am located in Wales, U.K, for a reference of what times I am likely to reply.
It is probably best if we now move this discussion to the Draft article Talkpage. I've copied all this over for ease. And you can see my first run at a re-draft. I hope you like it. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fantastic work, and I am very grateful that you have helped me of your own accord.
The edit is very good, and now you have cleaned up the aforementioned areas, the whole thing looks a lot better.
I may make some changes to the wording of the Evan Morgan section. With regards to the Family section, if people wish to know more about that, they could always go to the Baron Tredegar or Tredegar House pages. With this in mind, do you think it could be streamlined?
Glad, and relieved you like it! Yes, the Morgan Family section could certainly be trimmed. But I do think we want to show the extent of the family's wealth and power, and its longevity. Those factors make John Morgan's swift and complete liquidation of his inheritance all the more dramatic. For me, his being the last of a very long line is his only real claim to Notability. And by all means make changes to the Evan section, it's your draft! I'll detail below those other improvements I think could be made.
One other thing - we don't want to work on it at the same time, or we'll edit conflict. Can you put the {in use} template on when you are editing, and I'll do so as well. It's just - in use - inside double curly brackets. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The wealth and power of the Morgan dynasty does need to be somewhat highlighted for the reasons you have made. I will be sure to add the {in use} template, as and when I am working on the draft.
With regards to "Possible further improvements/issues", I also doubt that Paul or Goff are academic historians. As you mention, I think it would be best to leave the The Peculiar Career of Lord Tredegar, and YouTube references in place and hope for the best. After all, the YouTube podcast is currently used as a reference on the Evan Morgan article.
As for 17/19 (now 18/20), the first is simply a duplicate of "Baron Renounces Inheritance", so I will correct that shortly. The second of the two marked "WHAT?", is titled "For Sale By Auction", so I will also correct that shortly.
As for any other newspaper references that I have left untitled, they're untitled because they do not have a title, and are very small one-paragraph publications.
So, I have had a first run-through. I hope you like it. I've tried, as far as possible, to maintain your text. I detail below those areas where I think further work/consideration is needed. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the citation issues, tried to make the ancestors section more digestible while still proving John's notability, and generally tidied up some bits and pieces. What do you think?
I think it is looking pretty damn healthy! Now we just need another reviewer. I’d do it myself, but I’m now too involved. KJP1 (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear! Thank you for all the work you've done on the article. It really looks great. As you say, now it's just a case of waiting for another reviewer to come along.
I've tried to drum up some interest on the Wales Project page. Failing that, I might approach a few AfC reviewers myself. KJP1 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Lets hope something good comes from the Wales Project page. Otherwise you asking AfC reviewers sounds like a good idea.
Just as a side-note, I have another article waiting for submission;Draft:Princess Olga Dolgorouky, Evan Morgan's wife. By no means am I asking you to donate the time you have spent on my John Morgan article, but perhaps it would simply interest you to read?
Paul Busby - the first, and most difficult issue. I don't think he is a professional historian. He and Goff met while working as guides at Tredegar House. The problems are: (a) Youtube, While this doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, its content is user-driven, so I don't think it's that reliable. But it's not yet been challenged, so maybe we can leave it and see what happens; (b) Hush, Hush: The Peculiar Career of Lord Tredegar, what's odd here is that, while I can find it, although not for sale, at various booksellers, and it has an ISBN, I can't find it on Worldcat. It's clearly self-published - same publisher title as the blog - but I would expect to find it on Worldcat if it were "proper". Again, we could leave it and see if it's challenged. Incidentally, if you have the book, could we have the relevant page number.
British Newspaper Archive sources - I've indicated Subscription required, and they are acceptable and should be kept, although they are obviously not as helpful as publicly-accessible sources. But can we have as much detail as possible? Do they have by-lines, in which case we should quote the authors, as I've done for the South Wales Argus article? Two of them, currently Cites 17/19, don't have titles, so I've called them WHAT!
Values - we should convert all the "values", one of which - the inheritance tax bill - I've wrongly removed, to conversion templates, e.g. "£35,000 or £800,000 in todays money". But first I need to find the conversion template!
