This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
A fact from William Montgomerie appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Style – Overall the article flows well, with the exception of his death being mention in the Career section. The article then keeps talking about his life and profession. His death should be integrated at the end.
Verifiability – Sources are reliable. I personally wish the citations were linked ("clickable") to the Bibliography references, like in today's FA. It makes it easier to find which source you're referencing, since the naming is not the same: RSA Transactions versus Transactions of the Royal Society of Arts. Can you fix this?
Neutrality – Very neutral in tone.
Stability – No large updates since last year; minor updates this year.
Illustration – Image found; what are your thoughts on an infobox?
William Montgomerie (1797–1856) was a nineteenth century Scottish military doctor with the East India Company, – The "nineteenth century" is redundant and unusual, especially since we have his DOB and death already.
Size – Given the size of the article (which is less than 15K characters), the lead should be one paragraph, per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
That is just an arbitrary guide. It says explicitly that it is not an absolute rule. Secondly, the guide actually says one or two paras. Rather than butchering the article to comply with a fairly meaningless arbtrary rule, can you point to something that you feel should be taken out of the lead? SpinningSpark 07:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A son is mentioned in a newspaper article. – Does the source mention his name? Just curious.
No, and I'm far from convinced that they are referring to a real son. The article may have been talking hyperbolically. SpinningSpark 07:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He retired to England in January 1844. – I'm assuming you mean he "returned" to England, correct?
The source says "retired". I think they mean he went home on a long furlough, a common practice for Imperial officials, but I don't have a source that says that explicitly. SpinningSpark 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was recalled to Bengal some years later as Garrison Surgeon – Does the source say when?
He died of cholera at Barrackpore,[7] India on 21 March 1856 and was buried in Fort William.[8] – The flow here is a bit off; you cover his death, but then you continue to talk about his career in the following paragraphs and sections. I would suggest you finish up his career and then conclude with his death later in other sections. The following sections continue to talk about his work in agriculture and other practices, so I would recommend you find a way to integrate his death in a way that reads chronologically.
I had noticed this while I was writing the article. But here's the thing, his death does not fit any better (worse in fact) into any other section. SpinningSpark 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One could also argue that he died while at work, thus ending his career rather dramatically. It's certainly more logical here than right at the end of the article in the recreation section. SpinningSpark 22:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
concern over the youth of Montgomerie – ... over Montgomerie's youth
from whom he took over and was now in charge – I would rephrase this last part per MOS:CURRENT; using "now" is usually avoided in articles here.
This does not come under MOS:CURRENT. It is the future-in-the-past tense and the statement will always be true, yea unto the end of time. SpinningSpark 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Montgomerie would be left in charge of Singapore – Since this incidents already happened, I would rephrase to: ... Montgomerie would have been left in charge of Singapore
Done (even though this is also future-in-the-past) SpinningSpark 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The area is now built-up and the name has reverted to Duxton Hill – Ditto per above; "now" should be removed and rephrased. I know it can sometimes be difficult, but Wikipedia'a information can often get outdated so it's better if we remove this.
There needs to be common sense used in applying the guidelines. It is highly unlikely Singapore will not be built-up on any timescale of significance to Wikipedia. We would have to imagine a ridiculously improbable scenario for that to happen, like a resurgent Khmer Rouge taking over and turning it into paddy fields. In such an event, I feel that Wikipedia would have rather more to update than this article. Washington, D.C., a Featured Article, says Washington, D.C....is the capital of the United States. If we took MOS:CURRENT literally and applied it rigidly we would have to write Washington, D.C.... as of 2018 was the capital of the United States.SpinningSpark 08:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
something affordable by ordinary people ... for ordinary people
Why is that wrong? "...affordable by ordinary people" means ordinary people can afford it. "...affordable for ordinary people" has a WEASELy overtone of Montgomerie doing this for altruisic reasons to help ordinary people. SpinningSpark 08:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gutta-percha is a natural rubber obtained from the sap of certain trees – This entire paragraph doesn't mention Montgomerie. I would recommend you start with: "... Montgomerie is sometimes credited with discovering gutta-percha, a natural rubber obtained from the sap of certain trees growing in the Far East." And the go with the facts you have already mentioned. It flows better that way.
To me, that's a big so what it doesn't mention him. The paragraph is about gutta-percha, so it is reasonable to start with what it is and why it is important. Then go on to Montgomerie's connection with it. I'm guessing most people have not even heard of gutta-percha so its better not leave them scratching their heads. I also don't like the idea of putting a lot of distance between the statement that Montgomerie is sometimes credited and the later text shooting that down. SpinningSpark 18:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is certainly responsible for it coming into widespread use – Remove "certainly" as it may be considered a WP:WEASEL.
At least, natives and Chinese were so confined, Europeans were somewhat better treated. – Rephrase to: Natives and Chinese were mostly kept confined while Europeans enjoyed better treatment.
after it had been demolished by explosives. – ... after it was demolished by explosives. BTW, does the source say when? Please add the year.
Done. We should be able to get a date. Not sure whether my source says so, but the Stone has its own article so sources should be there. I'll take a look. SpinningSpark 08:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
