Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. Why is the article named "James Balfour (died 1845)" and not "James Balfour (nabob)"?

2. "was a Scottish nabob who became a landowner and politician" - This sentence does not appear to mention why this man James Balfour was of any historical significance. I would suggest changing this to "was a Scottish nabob and later politician of the British parliament who is also known for his numerous estates" or something like that.

3. "from 1826 to 1834" ... "from 1902 to 1905" - This is fine but I would recommend writhing it like so "1826-34" and "1902-05" in accordance with MOS:DATEFORMAT, but this is just a suggestion.

4. "were estimated to be worth over £1 million (equivalent to £86.3 million in 2014)" - I would recommend changing this sentence to "were estimated to be worth over £86.3 million (todays equivalent of £1 million in those days)" as it's easier to understand. Also, was all his estates valued and comprised a total worth of £86.3 million or was it just his living estate? This should be clarified.

5. "Balfour was the second son of John Ramsay Balfour" - Always start off by mentioning when the person was born. I know the exact date is unknown, but change it to something like "Born as James Balfour in 1775 to John Ramsay Balfour".

6. "His older brother Robert Balfour, who inherited Balbirnie, became a Lieutenant-General in the British Army" - Sentence is not sourced!

7. "After studying book-keeping and accountancy in Edinburgh, Balfour went to Madras in March 1795" - The last sentence in which the article talked about James he was only just born. I would strongly suggest adding a word or two about when and for how long he studied book-keeping and accountancy.

8. "Balfour returned to India in 1802, where he became a merchant in partnership with James Baker" - With no link or previous mention of Baker how is the reader supposed to know who he is?

9. "His breakthrough came in 1806, when the partners obtained the contract with the Victualling Commissioners of the Royal Navy to supply their needs throughout the East Indies" - I would suggest changing the word "the" before "contract" with simply "a".

10. "The contract had been held since 1796 by the Hon. Basil Cochrane" - I recommend writing "businessman" instead of "Hon."

11 "However, before leaving, Cochrane was notified that the Navy was reviewing his accounts dating back to 1794, and had lost much of the paperwork" - This needs to be re-written as it's not very clear.

12 "On his return to Scotland in 1815" - So far the article has not mentioned that he intended to go back to Scotland. Therefore, it should be changed to something like "In 1815, he decided to return to Scotland".

13. "equivalent to £950 thousand in 2014" - You should not switch between using numbers and words to write numbers. This sentence needs to be changed to "£950,000" to match the other parts of the article.

14. "He also bought a town house in London, No. 3 Grosvenor Square" - I think the mention that he bought a town house in London is enough, no need for the exact street number.

15. "the house was expanded and altered in 1827 to the designs of William Burn" - It seems the word "match" is missing between "to" and "the".

16. "which were not entirely successful" - Was the expansion unsuccessful in terms of the building part or was the Balfours unhappy with the result? This should be clarified and maybe formulated.

17. "McWilliam and Wilson describe them as having changed "a dry composition into a boring one" - In this sentence the article just decides on a whim to mention the last name of two people that's not mentioned before or again as if the reader is supposed to know who these two is!

18. "Balfour became a justice of the peace" - instead of this confusing sentence consider changing it to "Balfour became a JP officer" or "Balfour became a justice of the peace officer".

19. "and in 1822 was appointed as a Deputy Lieutenant of Haddingtonshire" - There is no need for the "as a" addition.

20. "Queen Caroline" - This needs to be changed to "Queen Caroline of the United Kingdom".

21. "However Lauderdale was disliked for his opposition to the popular Queen Caroline, which became a significant issue in the campaign. His agents claimed that Balfour would have opposed her trial" - What trail?

22. "With 3 out 5 votes" - WP:NUMERAL.

23. "presented all the petitions to Parliament" - It seems the addition "the" should be between "to" and "parliament" and not "all" and "petitions".

24. "in favour of the Bill" - "Bill" should not be capitalized unless the full name of the bill is mentioned.

25. "taking 3 of the four boroughs" - WP:NUMERAL.´

26. "Balfour was drafted to stand instead in the county seat of Haddingtonshire" - This sentence should be changed to "Balfour was instead drafted to stand in the county seat of Haddingtonshire".

27. "He was survived by his wife, two sons, and two daughters. One daughter had died as an infant in a fire in the 1820s" - This is already mentioned previously in the article.

28. "1820–1856" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

39. "Charles Balfour's son Charles Barrington Balfour became an army officer and an MP" - The "an army officer and an MP" wording is unprofessional and grammarly wrong. Should be changed to "an army and military police officer".

30. Previously the article writes "16th or early 17th century, and by the late 18th century", bt in the "Death and legacy" section the article says "the twentieth century".

With 30 listed points I'm strongly recommending the GA-nominator or editors who worked on this article glance over the article one more time with grammar-critical eyes.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The references sources used in this article are not all reliable such as this. Some of the sources does not include the right information and is arranged messy. In addition, the article contains quite a few un-sourced sentences which is kind of a middle finger to the reviewer.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article has a section called "Family and early life" which is in no way broad about his family and mentions virtually nothing about his early life. Also, the article could use a "Personal life" section. Lots of information that are typically placed in such a section can be found many places in the article.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does not included personal opinions or statements.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is neutral, its content does not significantly change from day to day and is not the subject of edit wars or disputes.

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is nicely illustrated with a total of seven pictures all of which are uploaded and from Commons. Also, I know this article is a lot about estates and wealthy houses, but why are there only pictures of estates and houses? The "Parliament" section could use a political-related picture.

• Pass, fail or hold?

Per all the points mentioned in this article I'm going to fail it. It's a good article, but not a GA-class article yet. I would be happy to re-review someday. I hope this helps and good luck. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I spotted this review, and may I advise you to put this on hold instead? Although you have listed 30 points of prose (some of which are contentious enough to invite discussion), this is fairly typical of a GA review, and many article writers can fix them in a few days at most - the only serious issue is unsourced content. The GA criteria only mandates five individual areas of the MOS, and while suggestions for other areas are welcome, not adhering to them is not directly a reason to fail the review. It may also be that the "family and early life" is not particularly important as documented in sources - the article must be focused as well as broad in coverage. The nominator, BrownHairedGirl is a highly experienced writer with a strong track record, and while that's not a reason to give a "free pass", the odds that she would write an article not conforming to the GA criteria are probably quite slim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I did not see your comment until now because I was AFK. Before failing an article I always consider putting it on hold first, but, like every other reviewer, I have a personal border about when an article crosses the too-many-errors-to-be-put-on-hold. I, before starting the review, also spotted that the GA-nominator was highly experienced, but like you said that does in no way allow a "free pass" or something similar. In theory, you can always put an article on hold if you note why it does not meet the GA-criteria, and the nominator fix the addressed problems. For me, the biggest problem with this article is the points made in the "Well-written", "Verifiable with no original research" and "Broad in its coverage" sections. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply to review

I have been away from en.wp for about 6 months, and have only just caught with this review. I will set out below my response to all 30 points raised.

Note that I am surprised at the tone of this review, and at the many false assertions by the reviewer. I have accepted 8 points in full and 4 in part. However, in my view, two of the reviewer's 30 points are plain nonsense, ten are unfounded, and five seem to me to be plausible but mistaken.

In summary, my response to the 30 points is
Accepted — items 13, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30
Partially accepted — items 5, 11, 12, 27
Unsure, want outside view — item 24
Unpersuaded (plausible, but I don't agree) — items 1, 2, 4, 6, 14
Rejected as unfounded — items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23
Nonsense — items 18, 29

I invite the reviewer (User:Jonas Vinther) to reconsider their review in light of my responses. If they would prefer not to do so, or we are unable to reach agreement, I will seek a fresh review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Why is the article named "James Balfour (died 1845)" and not "James Balfour (nabob)"?

• Because when the article was created, that provided a unique disambiguator from the other ppl listed at James Balfour. I am not persuaded that "nabob" sufficiently differentiates this man from James Balfour (British Army officer), whose career in India could also have led to him being called a "nabob" (the article is a stub, so doesn't help either way).
  If anyone wants to propose moving the article, feel free to open a WP:RM request. However, AFAICS article titles are not part of the GA criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

2. "was a Scottish nabob who became a landowner and politician" - This sentence does not appear to mention why this man James Balfour was of any historical significance. I would suggest changing this to "was a Scottish nabob and later politician of the British parliament who is also known for his numerous estates" or something like that.

• Huh? He was of historical significance as a nabob, as a politician, and as a landowner. The proposed rewording imparts no new information or explanation, and just adds verbosity. Further detail is added in the following sentences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

3. "from 1826 to 1834" ... "from 1902 to 1905" - This is fine but I would recommend writhing it like so "1826-34" and "1902-05" in accordance with MOS:DATEFORMAT, but this is just a suggestion.

• Word-form date ranges are specifically supported in WP:DATERANGE. The reviewer's suggestion of using a hyphen is not supported. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

4. "were estimated to be worth over £1 million (equivalent to £86.3 million in 2014)" - I would recommend changing this sentence to "were estimated to be worth over £86.3 million (todays equivalent of £1 million in those days)" as it's easier to understand. Also, was all his estates valued and comprised a total worth of £86.3 million or was it just his living estate? This should be clarified.

two points here:

• A) I disagree that inverting the order adds clarity. As a historian, it seems to me much preferable to state as primary info the actual value at the time, and follow it with any conversions. These conversions can be calculated in many different ways, and are only a vague guide to the reader on interpreting the actual historical value. It would be wrong to lead with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• B) The sources refers to his "personal estate". I am unsure of the precise legal definitions surrounding different types of estate, or of how they apply in this case. I am not willing to add greater specificity than the sources provide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

5. "Balfour was the second son of John Ramsay Balfour" - Always start off by mentioning when the person was born. I know the exact date is unknown, but change it to something like "Born as James Balfour in 1775 to John Ramsay Balfour".

• I have added[1] "about 1775" to that para. In this case, the sources say only "circa 1775", and I reject the reviewer's suggestion of omitting the "about". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

6. "His older brother Robert Balfour, who inherited Balbirnie, became a Lieutenant-General in the British Army" - Sentence is not sourced!

• The source used in the en.wp article on Robert Balfour, 6th of Balbirnie is Edward J. Davies, "The Balfours of Balbirnie and Whittingehame", The Scottish Genealogist, 60(2013):84-90. This article is widely cited elsewhere on the web, but I have not consulted it myself. I don't want to cite a source I haven't seen, but since this is neither a contentious point nor central to the article, I don't think that the lack of a reference in critical. I am open to outside views on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

7. "After studying book-keeping and accountancy in Edinburgh, Balfour went to Madras in March 1795" - The last sentence in which the article talked about James he was only just born. I would strongly suggest adding a word or two about when and for how long he studied book-keeping and accountancy.

• Once again, information can be added only if supported by reliable sources. None of the sources I used provided further details on his studies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

8. "Balfour returned to India in 1802, where he became a merchant in partnership with James Baker" - With no link or previous mention of Baker how is the reader supposed to know who he is?

• Once again, information can be added only if supported by reliable sources. None of the sources I used provided further details on James Baker. The choices are either to include Baker's name or omit it. I don't see how omitting it would improve the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

9. "His breakthrough came in 1806, when the partners obtained the contract with the Victualling Commissioners of the Royal Navy to supply their needs throughout the East Indies" - I would suggest changing the word "the" before "contract" with simply "a".

• The definite and idenfinite articles have different meanings. The cited source[2] uses the word "the" because this was a unique single contract covering all British bases east of the Cape of Good Hope. It's regrettable that the reviewer failed to check the linked source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

10. "The contract had been held since 1796 by the Hon. Basil Cochrane" - I recommend writing "businessman" instead of "Hon."

• The word "businessman" is uperfluous becuase it is implicit in the fact that Cochrane had a business contract. The word "Hon." (short for Honourable) conveys the fact that Cochrane was the son of a viscount or a baron, which is a significant status given the power of the aristocracy at the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

11 "However, before leaving, Cochrane was notified that the Navy was reviewing his accounts dating back to 1794, and had lost much of the paperwork" - This needs to be re-written as it's not very clear.

• Minor tweak. I have revised this[3] to read "that the Navy had lost much of the paperwork" to clarify who lost the documents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

12 "On his return to Scotland in 1815" - So far the article has not mentioned that he intended to go back to Scotland. Therefore, it should be changed to something like "In 1815, he decided to return to Scotland".

• Once again, information can be added only if supported by reliable sources. None of the sources I used provided further details on when he made the decision to return to Scotland, only the fact that he did return in 1815. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

13. "equivalent to £950 thousand in 2014" - You should not switch between using numbers and words to write numbers. This sentence needs to be changed to "£950,000" to match the other parts of the article.

• That's actually a quirk of {{formatprice}}. I have done a workaround[4], so that for now it displays "£950,000". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

14. "He also bought a town house in London, No. 3 Grosvenor Square" - I think the mention that he bought a town house in London is enough, no need for the exact street number.

• Grosvenor Square is not a non-notable suburban street. It was and is a highly notable square in a part of London which remains very fashionable, and which has always been a high-status address (for those who are into status). It is the subject of several chapters in the Survey of London. How would the reader be helped by omitting the 22 charcters which link Balfour to this exclusive address? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

15. "the house was expanded and altered in 1827 to the designs of William Burn" - It seems the word "match" is missing between "to" and "the".

• No word is missing. The phrase "to the designs of X" is widely used, and perfectly clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

16. "which were not entirely successful" - Was the expansion unsuccessful in terms of the building part or was the Balfours unhappy with the result? This should be clarified and maybe formulated.

• See the following sentence of the article, which explains the criticisms of McWilliam and Wilson. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

17. "McWilliam and Wilson describe them as having changed "a dry composition into a boring one" - In this sentence the article just decides on a whim to mention the last name of two people that's not mentioned before or again as if the reader is supposed to know who these two is!

• Good catch. Changed to "Colin McWilliam and Christopher Wilson". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

18. "Balfour became a justice of the peace" - instead of this confusing sentence consider changing it to "Balfour became a JP officer" or "Balfour became a justice of the peace officer".

• Nonsense. In Scots law there is no such thing as a "JP officer" or a "justice of the peace officer". If the reviewer was unfamiliar with the term, why did they not simply follow the link to Justice of the peace? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

19. "and in 1822 was appointed as a Deputy Lieutenant of Haddingtonshire" - There is no need for the "as a" addition.

• Yes there is. Each Lieutenancy county has several Deputy Lieutenants at any one time; the phrasing used conveys the fact that Balfour did not hold a unique title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

20. "Queen Caroline" - This needs to be changed to "Queen Caroline of the United Kingdom".

• That would be superfluous. There is no ambiguity, because the whole context is situated in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

21. "However Lauderdale was disliked for his opposition to the popular Queen Caroline, which became a significant issue in the campaign. His agents claimed that Balfour would have opposed her trial" - What trail?

• I have amended[5] the sentence to read "her trial for alleged adultery" .The trial of Queen Caroline is not directly relevant to this article, so I thought that this was excessive detail. But if it's wanted, in it goes. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

22. "With 3 out 5 votes" - WP:NUMERAL.

• Done[6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

23. "presented all the petitions to Parliament" - It seems the addition "the" should be between "to" and "parliament" and not "all" and "petitions".

• No. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is referred to simply as "Parliament", without a definite article. See the UK Parliament website: Petitions to Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

24. "in favour of the Bill" - "Bill" should not be capitalized unless the full name of the bill is mentioned.

• Not sure about that. It is referring to a specific bill, whose full name was set out in the preceding sentence. I don't mind either way, but would like an outside view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

25. "taking 3 of the four boroughs" - WP:NUMERAL.´

• Done[7]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

26. "Balfour was drafted to stand instead in the county seat of Haddingtonshire" - This sentence should be changed to "Balfour was instead drafted to stand in the county seat of Haddingtonshire".

• No, the wording I have used reflects the fact that he was not standing as an alternative to doing something else (such as joining the army or going to sea), but standing in one seat instead of another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

27. "He was survived by his wife, two sons, and two daughters. One daughter had died as an infant in a fire in the 1820s" - This is already mentioned previously in the article.

• The purpose of the restatement was to note that only one of his five children had died in infancy, which was at the time fortuitous. I have trimmed[8] the sentence to restate the point more briefly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

28. "1820–1856" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

• Done[9]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

29. "Charles Balfour's son Charles Barrington Balfour became an army officer and an MP" - The "an army officer and an MP" wording is unprofessional and grammarly wrong. Should be changed to "an army and military police officer".

• No. The only unprofessionalism here is that of the reviewer. The abbreviation MP is used to refer to "Member of Parliament". Per MOS:ABBREV that abbreviation is explained in the lede (para 2, first sentence). Additionally a quick read of Charles Barrington Balfour would have shown the reviewer that CB Balfour was not a military police officer, and that the reviewer was mistakenly applying an American abbreviation to an article on a British topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

30. Previously the article writes "16th or early 17th century, and by the late 18th century", but in the "Death and legacy" section the article says "the twentieth century".

• Done[10]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: the reviewer has responded that this is "not my proudest review", and has recommended a new review. I have therefore made a new GA nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'll take this. Give me some time to read through and review it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, ChrisGualtieri. You are probably aware of the previous review, but in case it's of an help, it's at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... that review is something I read over and I found it to be well.... a bit nitpicky, but it did result in some real errors being found and I've done some spot checks on wording and sources. For instance: "Balfour was born in about 1775." - born in about.... when I read it, it sounds weird - but it is UK-style. The only thing I know is that the note on the source being used states: He swore on oath, 31 Mar. 1795, that he was ‘above the age of 17 years, and under the age of 22 years’ (BL OIOC J/1/15, f. 274). According to S.H. Zebel, Balfour: a Political Biog. 1, he was b. in 1773. This is more detailed and might be suitable for a note, so the reader understands the window of time. Other than that... it is looking good so far on my checks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough, Chris. My concern with the prev review is not really the nitpickiness — I value attention to detail — as the fact that it was in so many cases plain wrong :(

I note your comment on year of birth, but I'll save any further comment until you have finished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm glad you're getting a new review, BrownHairedGirl! Good luck, Prhartcom (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I spent a solid half hour trying to find faults or issues with the sources. Though I'll provide a found source to replace the one questionable one in the article: Milne, who spent almost £5,000 on Berwick elections, 1820-3, assisted the 8th earl of Lauderdale’s son-in-law James Balfour* at the July and November 1820 by-elections and purchased the Berwickshire estate of Milne Graden in 1821, notwithstanding his second wife’s wishes. [11] Using the History of Parliament website, the Leigh Rayment source can be removed. I did other spot checks on things like the china and such, and these checked out. Question though "iron workings".... you mean "iron works" or no? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also "However Lauderdale" and "Instead he" need a comma in-between. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see any other issues. Do you think anything else needs to be fixed or addressed before it passes? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi ChrisGualtieri

Many thanks for checking so thoroughly, and sorry for being slow to reply. I have been through all your comments, and I think I have implemented all but one:

• His age. I have incorporated a footnote per your suggestion[12]
• I added two references to replace Leigh Raymnet: the HistOfParl one you suggest, and The Times report on the petition which overturned Milne's election [13]
• Added the missing commas which you spotted [14]

I didn't change the phrase "iron workings". My understanding is that "iron workings" refer to the mines or quarries where the ore is extracted from the ground, whereas "iron works" refers to a place where iron is processed. "Workings" was the phrase used in the sources, so I thought it best to retain that usage. What do you think?

Thanks again for the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay. GA Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Claimed Royal descent

@Agricolae: you removed the referenced text "Balfours had fought with Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, and a pedigree written under the authority of the Lord Lyon King of Arms traced James Balfour's descent in a direct line from King Robert II, son-in-law of Robert the Bruce", with the edit summary[15]"Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." One's understanding of James Balfour is not forwarded by giving trivia about what his family was supposedly doing FIVE HUNDRED YEARS earlier or claims about distant royal descents of the type shared by the majority of the Scottish upper gentry of the time

1. This is only one sentence. That is not WP:UNDUE coverage of the issue.
2. That sentence does not "present a family history" (per WP:NOTGENEALOGY). It presents one fact of family history
3. The claim is not trivia. It it is an indication of how the family perceived its social standing.
4. The authentication of the claim Lord Lyon adds weight to it, distinguishing it from a mere family boast. (You may query the accuracy of Lord Lyon's authentication, but the use of a supposedly reliable source would have added social standing at the time)
5. If you have a reliable source for your assertion that the majority of the Scottish upper gentry of the time made similar claims, then that would be a useful addition to the paragraph. It would be esp valuable if you could add reliably-sourced info on the merits or otherwise of a pedigree from Lord Lyon.

Please can you find the sources rather than just deleting?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Five hundred years. That is trivia. 'It is not family history because it is only a little bit of family history'? That is a non sequitur, and its inclusion is completely out of WP:PROPORTION - a passing comment on the first page of an almost 500 page biography. No, it would not be a useful addition to the paragraph to state why such ancestor-fawning trivia is completely unremarkable, that is reason not to include it. FIVE HUNDRED YEARS! Agricolae (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Per WP:BRD, please stop removing the test while we discuss this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Agricolae: you seem unfamiliar with the policies you cite.

First, you repeatedly namechecked WP:NOTGENEALOGY, but apparently without scrutinising its text. It says Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. It does not say to mention nothing of family history. That guideline is clearly intended to debar long screeds of family history, and it clearly envisages that family history can be presented in an appropriate way. You express horror that an article might include only a little bit of family history ... but the policy on which you were relying envisages exactly that.

Secondly, after your retreat from your misplaced reliance on WP:NOTGENEALOGY, you now cite WP:PROPORTION. The text which you removed amounted to 45 words out of a 1570 word article. That is less that 3% of the article, which is in no way excessive

Thirdly, despite my specific request, you offer no reliable sources to support you assertion that such ancestor-fawning trivia is completely unremarkable. If you have those sources, I ask again that you present them. If you cannot do so, then I will have to conclude that you are simply pushing some personal POV.

Fourthly, you didn't acknowledge my points about the significance of Lord Lyon's attestation of pedigree. Again, if you have any reliable sources to support your dismissal of that evidence, then again -- please present it.

Finally, I would like to ask you to take a less combative tone. We disagree, so let's discuss and do so in WP:CIVIL fashion. Use of phrases like such ancestor-fawning trivia and shouty uppercase are not conducive to civil discussion. And please leave the text in place while we discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, into the twilight zone we go. I am perfectly familiar with NOTGENEALOGY, just not your special reading of it that draws a distinction between 'family history' and 'just a little bit of family history'. I have not retreated from NOTGENEALOGY one iota - a 500-year pedigree is just decoration inconsistent with the policy. And if you want to apply strict mathematical formulas, it occupies less than half a page in the original book, putting it in the neighborhood of 0.1% of the total text, so that would indeed make 3% about 30 times more than it merits. Setting aside such strict metrics, a throw-away piece of trivia does not merit repetition in an encyclopedia-length article, even at only 3%. (And I find your point about Lord Lyon to be valueless, given the nature of such claims. It is neither a guarantee of certainty nor a certification of some special status engendered were such a descent to be true. There is nothing special here, nothing at all, and you are the one pushing it as some unique characteristic.) And please leave it out while we discuss - you are the one who decided today that it really needed to be there even though it hasn't been for months. As to civility and tone, maybe you should have thought of that when you accused me of not reading policies, or of retreating (as if this was a battlefield), and of experiencing horror. Doctor, heal thyself. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Agricolae: As you well know, there is no twolight zone.

NOTGENEALOGY says says Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. It does not say to mention nothing of family history. Please stop misrepresenting it as a total ban on family history.

I don't believe that you genuinely hold to that reading, because if you did, then you would also want to remove the preceding one-and-a-half sentences, which are also about family history.

As to the metrics, your 0.1% of the book is a calculation based on poor numbers. I sourced the info from a snippet view of page 1 of the book, probably an intro. Your figure is based on the unevidenced an implausible assumption that the family history is discussed nowhere in the book other than on page one. So your number is meaningless.

You assert that such an assertion under the Lord Lyon's authority is a throw-away piece of trivia. I have asked you twice for evidence to support that claim, but you respond only with more aggression, and no evidence.

The reason for including the snippet (which I cut to only 41 words) is that James Balfour founded a political dynasty, and himself claimed to be part of a longer dynasty. That is a part of how the family viewed itself.

You refused to discuss your concerns per WP:BRD until I initiated the discussion about text which you chose to remove.

I had hoped to have a reasoned discussion with you about this, and my initial post was measured and calm. But you responded with of uppercase, denial of policy, and battlefield phrasing such as non sequitur, ancestor-fawning trivia, and when challenged on that you have just tried to offload onto me the responsibility for your own aggression. This is classic WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct, as is your insistence[16] on maintaining your 3-month-old edit as the status quo over a text which had been stable and unquestioned for the previous 4 years.

I may be pessimistic, but I don't foresee that your tone of or your black-and-white view of a nuanced policy are likely to change sufficiently to facilitate a consensus. So I will seek a WP:3O. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

PS Note that the article went through two GA reviews without any concerns being expressed about the contested 41 words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I never said NOTGENEALOGY was a total ban - that is your own strawman. What you will not find in that policy anywhere is the caveat that genealogy should not be left out, unless there is just a little of it, or if you think it is interesting, or if you are drawing some conclusion about its relevance not found in the cited source. It is only to be included when it helps understand the subject, and the genealogy would have to be astoundingly remarkable for it to really help understand someone 500 years later, which is not the case here. However, since now you are claiming that the entire book is rife with references to the subject's descent from 14th century Scotsmen, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge to find a direct quote indicating that the author thinks that we can only understand Balfour's life by knowing that his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was a king and another one fought in a battle. . . . . Yeah, I thought not.

More disturbing regarding this same point, what do you mean that you cited a snippet of what was probably an intro? Are you telling me you are citing this page without knowing whether it is part of an intro or not? You say it is an implausible assumption that this is the only reference to this descent. That sounds to me like you don't have a clue whether or not the author discusses it elsewhere. Don't you know? Please tell me you read more than a Google Books snippet before citing, which would be egregious.

I have not refused to discuss my concerns. That is what I have been doing here.

And of course it is all my fault, what with you being all flexible and willing to consider not having that text there - oh, wait, you have been completely unwilling to consider that. But only I am not willing to 'work toward consensus'? Do you find this 'either you agree with me or you are acting in bad faith' a productive approach with other editors? Agricolae (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agricolae, your battlefield conduct continues. Please desist. If you actually want to discuss your concerns, then please desist from the sarcassm, hyperbole, strawmen and shouting.

Your commentary on NOTGENEALOGY is bizarre. It urges proportionality, which is what we are discussing here. Or should be.

Then you put words into my mouth, saying you are claiming that the entire book is rife with references to the subject's descent from 14th century Scotsmen. You know perfectly well that I made no such claim; I merely said that it seemed likely that p1 was just a summary intro, and that we didn't know whether there is more.

Similarly, you use hyperbole to construct a strawman, challenging me to find a direct quote indicating that the author thinks that we can only understand Balfour's life by knowing that his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was a king and another one fought in a battle. As you well know, the question at stake not whether this info makes or breaks the article, but whether or not the inclusion makes the article marginally better or marginally worse.

We are here to build an encyclopedia. Please conduct yourself with some civility, without the hyperbole and aggressive sarcasm and strawmen which as characterised all your contributions to this article so far. I have taken a peek at some of your conduct elsewhere, and I see other examples of your aggression; please stop.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)