Talk:Sir James Shaw, 1st Baronet/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

 Done
 Done sourced from ODNB instead.
 Done - I've found contradictory sources, and I don't think it's that important
  • Side note, current ref 12 (The British History online one) is actually a book which BHO reprints, so technically it should be listed as a book, not a web page.
 Done
 Done
  • The "since he was unmarried" doesn't necessarily follow. More correct would be "Shaw was unmarried, and normally his baronetcy would have gone extinct on his death, but because of the second patent, which allowed the title to pass to his nephew."
 Done
Main concern is the two sources mentioned above. Prose is a bit stilted, but that's probably because there isn't much to discuss.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial responses.
  1. Persondata can be added, but I don't think is required for a GA.
  2. Rayment seems to be an accepted source by WP:PEER here: WP:PEERAGE#Sources_of_Information and is widely used in numerous similar articles.
  3. As for this, I've often found that local historians have more of a clue, particularly in relation to areas in which they are amongst the few people who are actually interested, although I will seek out a "more acceptable" source.
  4. Source for BHO will be fixed.
  5. Maybe the inflationary value needs to be addressed, but I don't regard it as critical to being a GA.
  6. Point taken on the entail for his nephew, but saying otherwise seems to be unnecessary detail since we are not concerned with pre-Law of Property Act 1925 issues, really.
I'll tick these off as I deal with them. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re #6 - you do however, make a point of saying he had two different patents earlier, so it seems a bit unbalanced to point it out earlier but gloss it over later... As for the inflation/persondata, yeah, they aren't required for GA, but since I was here. Just because the Peerage project suggests the page/site, doesn't mean it's reliable. You'll want to see that other reliable sources quote it, or use it or that he's an expert in the field publishing elsewhere. this might be useful, and the birth and death dates can come from the ONDB, as can the other information sourced to Rayment. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOoks good! Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's value[edit]

I suppose the '(£NaN as of 2016)' that I deleted is meant to produce a calculated figure, but as it did not, I deleted it. Shipsview (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sir_James_Shaw,_1st_Baronet/GA1&oldid=741898489"