Talk:Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I shall be undertaking this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • Article is referenced

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • Apparently neutral

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • no cleanup banners

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • no edit-warring

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • not applicable

No quickfail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • This is currently not well written. I would suggest enlisted the help of an experienced copy-editor. You may be able to get help at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Much improved, would need further work for FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
   • Specific points:

   • Many sentences are too long, with several sub-ordinate clauses. Consider splitting and simplifying. Examples: John Forbes-Sempill was a landowner and soldier, who had served with the Lovat Scouts and then the Black Watch in the South African War, before succeeding to the title of Lord Sempill in 1905; he would later go on to command the 8th Battalion Black Watch in the First World War, and was wounded at the Battle of Loos. , Ewan was raised female, but with a childhood dominated by a widespread gender insecurity; after refusing to go away to a girls' school, he was educated at home, and the culmination of this unhappy upbringing was coming out as a debutante in London in the late 1920s.[. Probably as a result of this length, the grammar is confusing in these sentences. Consider also: Gwendolyn Forbes-Sempill, born Gwendolyn Prodger, was born and raised in Wales, with a Cornish mother, - with is the wrong word here. Also: The issue of his gender remained a private one until 1965, when his elder brother Lord Sempill died, with daughters but no sons. - implies he died with his daughters! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Again, much improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • I've given it a thorough reworking, and hopefully it's in a better state now. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • Throughout Ewan is used interchangeably with he and occasionally Forbes. The accepted style is to use the simple family name, e.g. Forbes. Conisder reducing the number of sentences which begin with he. The article could do with an infobox, e.g. Template:Infobox Peer. I would suggest seeking a picture, if at all possible. The lead needs to be expandede, thuink of it as an executive summary of the article in three or four sentences at least.
   • also, please checkout WP:WikiProject_Peerage for guidelines on a suitable style. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   • The major problem here is likely to be the inheritance section; "Forbes" is going to get confusing quite fast there. There's also the complicating fact that he wasn't simply Forbes until the 1960s; he was Forbes-Sempill. Whatever we do here, we're going to hit problems of either anachronism or inconsistency; I'll have a think about how best to handle this. I concur on too many pronouns! Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Pronouns are now (somewhat) omitted, and "Forbes" is used throughout rather than "Ewan". A few people are referred to at times by forenames where the full name would be confusing in the text. Lede expanded to two paragraphs, and a (short) infobox added. There's a discussion above about the difficulty of sourcing a picture; I'm keeping my eyes out, but I've had no success at finding one which is both usable and which I can physically get a copy of. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is well referenced, apart from By the time he returned from the Continent, Ewan's heart was set on studying medicine, but his father refused to fund his studies, arguing that there was no need for him to study further, since there was more than enough work to be done managing and maintaining the estate. Ewan resolved to fund his own studies, aiming to put aside £1,000 to cover the costs. which does not seem to be supported. also later noting that the curriculum was "very lax" Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Fine now Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • My notes confirm this is entirely from Forbes p.50, as cited at the end of the paragraph. I'm fairly sure the "very lax" comment is also from Forbes, but it's not in my notes so I'll drop it out. Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • As far as it is possible to ascertain references are to reliable sources. ref #25 & #26 are to the same page so I have combined them as #25a & #25b, also Forbes p31 & page 11 Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of OR Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is reasonably broad in its scope, but I am surprised that there is not more material which could adduced from the sources. I would like to see some explanation of why this baronetcy is referred to as being of Newfoundland. Who granted the original title and when? A little more detail about his later life after the inheritance case would be good. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Again this doesn't stick out like a sore thumb anymore. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • I think we've got about all there can be about the later life without digging in primary sources; there's probably some coverage of him in other people's memoirs, but there's no easy way of tracking those down. He led a surprisingly quiet life.
   • As for the baronetcy, it seems a bit tangential to me - it's all in Forbes Baronets. Would a short section, split out from the early life, about the family and its two titles be useful? It'd be a good opportunity to discuss the inheritance issue... hrm. That might work, actually. Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Family background section added; later life is still pretty thin, but I've broken it out into a new section so it at least feels a bit longer. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • The article is focussed on the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The article mostly adheres to a WP:NPOV, but there are some WP:weasel words, e.g. cynically, sharply,

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • I find no evidence of edit-warring Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • the image used is correctly tagged and licensed Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • appropriately used with a suitable caption Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • 3 wikilinks: Homburg, Beltona & elder are linked to disambiguation pages, they need to be fixed, also the points raised above. On hold for improvements for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   • You have asked at my talk page regarding the changes from she and Betty to he and Ewan. Yes consistency is good, but you should be using the short family name Forbes, rather than the given name Ewan. I also think that too many successive sentences start with he. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Mmm. I've tried to work on it, but there's still some parts with three successive sentences beginning this way; not sure how best to reduce that any further, though. Otherwise, all concerns have been (hopefully!) addressed. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • OK, I am happy with the artcile now. Congratulations on a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)