Talk:James Ferguson, Lord Pitfour

The "trick"

Perhaps I'm being more than usually stupid, but I don't understand it at all. He mixed in his servants and then proved that his servants were innocent. So how did that help anyone? --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, unfortunately, neither of the references I had clarify it any further (the Clan Ferguson ref is available online, see page 249). I guess (using WP:SYNTH) the prosecution thought if some of the rebels were innocent, it meant some of the others must be as well? It just goes on to say 'it had a most salutary effect on the trials'. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's awkward. Hard to speculate on what the source means without breaching NOR or, as you say, SYNTH. Perhaps the text could say something along the lines that it was a measure designed to confuse? Ironically, that much seems clear. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I found another ref, which handily is online, so have now included that, jigged the wording a little and hopefully it's clarified it? Thanks for highlighting this as it's (I think) helped improve it! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Ferguson, Lord Pitfour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 21:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   The article needs copy editing for punctuation and flow. I will look after this once you fix the quick-fail issue of the inadequate lead. Y I have now done two rounds of copy editing and am satisfied that the prose meets the GA standard.

   The last two paragraphs of the Career section uses too many quotations. Can you write this information in your own words? Y

   Why does promotion to the bench automatically make him a lord? Y

   Was Gilmerton part of Edinburgh when he died there? Y

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead:

   The lead is too short, and does not cover all the main points that the article covers. For example, the section on the estate at Pitfour is the second longest in the article, but is barely mentioned in the lead. Y The lead is now adequate.

   Why is the Poker Club important enough that it is mentioned in the lead when there's only one sentence in the article? If it's important we need more information; if it's not important it should not be in the lead. Y

   Linking:

   Items should be linked on first occurrence (Jacobite). Items that appear in the lede and the body should be linked in both places (The Poker Club, Jacobite) Y

   Information about the first laird at the bottom of the Career section should be in the Ancestry section. Y

   Coaching inn should be linked. Y

   Douglas Fir is a redirect. Y

   You link to the article Earl Marischal but this is an article about the title, not the individual person who sold him the land. Please find out his identity and link to that article if we have one, or at a minimum, tell us who he was. Y

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Sources look reliable. I am unable to access them and thus have no way to verify if the content is actually there or whether there is any copy vio.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   The citation style is inconsistent. I will look after this once you fix the quick-fail issue of the inadequate lead. Y Citations are now tidied and are in one unified style.

   Retrieval dates should not be included for books. Y

C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   What made him a great lawyer? Right now we only have the one case as an example. Is there more information available on this point?

• There are not really any other outstanding cases specified. The book I have simply states that Pitfour's case records are available in the National Library of Scotland, Aberdeen University and the Advocates Library. I did find this but most of the cases appear pretty mundane. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Additional material has been added to the Career section -- Dianna (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. B. Remains focused:

   Some details are included that seem off-topic. For example, why is it important for us to know that the 11th Lord Lovat was executed in the Tower? Y

   "After the Earl Marischal returned to favour" - we are not told that the Earl Marischal had dropped out of favour, so why are we being told of his return to favour? Y

   "Earl Mariscal had not wanted details to be publicly known" - Why not, and why is this important to the story of James Ferguson, Lord Pitfour? Y

   "It was considered the Earl Marischal's most significant property." Significant in what way? I am unable to find this information in the cited source. Y

2. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for seven days to address the above issues, at which time I will help with copy editing and formatting of citations. -- Dianna (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for reviewing and your constructive comments, Diannaa. I will try to start rectifying these today. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Development of the article to GA standards is now complete. Congratulations, article is promoted to GA. -- Dianna (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking to List of Deans of the Faculty of Advocates

@Sagaciousphil: could you explain your reasoning behind removing the links to List of Deans of the Faculty of Advocates? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The first time you "corrected" the link was not appropriate as readers would not be expecting the link to simply go to a list of the names of other Deans. The next time it was linked was also inappropriate as readers would expect an explanation of a Dean rather than be directed to a list of names. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you for you reasoning. I agree about the first but not the second. The list opens with a explanation of what the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is (IE "the head of the Faculty of Advocates") and is therefore more than just a list of names. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: contrary to the claim made above, I do not believe the very brief two sentence lead in the list article, which I note is poorly written and grammatically incorrect, does not sufficiently explain what the Dean is (surely even a child could work out it is the head of the faculty?). An extremely brief search reveals there are ample scholarly sources that could be used to create some decent opening sentences to provide a better overview of the work of the Dean. The list is incomplete and contains unreferenced entries for people who do not seem notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. To link to it anywhere within this article is, however, deceiving readers so the most that might be warranted would be a link in a See also section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting now with a rude Edit summary, “spurious link”. Not likely to induce confidence. Far from being “spurious”, linking to articles regarding posts non commonly understood is pretty much the essence of Wikipedia. POTUS does not require linking, as nearly everybody on the planet who can read English will know what that post is (and can easily look it up if they do not), while Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is definitely not widely understood outwith the country. Mais oui! (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mais oui!, I'm surprised you have reverted citing WP:BRD; as you can see (and also indicated in my edit summary) there is already discussion here. Your edit linked to a list of Deans (hence spurious) rather than what it used to be, a link to the Faculty of Advocates - the re-direct was altered recently here by the editor who created the list. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read the faculty article, it's all there, the list adds nothing. Links are supposed to be useful. J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)