Talk:Parsley Peel

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parsley Peel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I shall begin reading this through. Comments to follow this afternoon.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems a little incomplete - for instance there is no account of his death.

• The books I've found on Peel seem to focus primarily on his achievements in life, and very little on his birth or death. This is primarily because the sources are often related to Prime Minister Peel, or to the cotton industry in general - there's little specifically targeting old "Parsley". The only thing I have on his death was from Wadsworth, which mentioned that Peel died a few months prior to his wife, who wished it thus - she wanted to out live him because he had given her a good life. I'm happy to include that if it helps, but I'm not sure how much it adds to the article. Were there any other topics you would be expecting to be included? (Keeping in mind of course that the criteria for Good article is "Broad in coverage" and "Focussed", not "complete") Worm^TT(talk) 15:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• The lede should summarise content contained in the article, but it does not actually mention the his grandson became prime minister. - done

• It now appears in the article (good) but isn't cited (not good). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  Well, it's pretty much the most uncontroversial fact in the article - one that is mentioned in almost every source... but hopefully the family tree will help clarify. Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have read through again, and, presuming there are no free images available (although you could probably get away with a fair-use if there was one) the article meets all the GA criteria. I am therefore listing this as a Good Article. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Huntly (1891) isn't included in the Bibliography. Eric Corbett 14:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've fixed that, I'm just a bit of a tit - that's his middle name, not his surname. Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Parsley"?

Preposterous. If Parsley Peel, then why not Turnip Townshend, Abe Lincoln or FDR?--Wetman (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's his common name, in all references he's either "Parsley Peel" or 'Old' Robert Peel. They had a habit of calling each other Robert Peel in that family, at 4 generations have wikipedia articles (Robert Peel (disambiguation)), and I've found reference to at least another 3. I don't see people complaining at will.i.am, Bill Clinton or many others. Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Image!

Wow.. It looks like you dragged someone all the way to Bury to take a photo of a statue to then to go back home again (2 hour round trip!). I must say it looks rather impressive and what's more impressive is that you managed to get it in daylight hours! Good job WormThatTurned! ツStacey (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bourne book -is the right edition being referenced ?

Looking at the various copies on archive.org (rather than just cut & pasting somebody else's references into a contribution of mine) and as far as I can see the 1866(sixty-six) edition (or at least the version of it held by the University of California) was in 2 volumes with the Peels in Vol 2 - Parsley Peel runs from p148-156. There was a 2nd edition in 1886(eighty-six) , Chatto & Windus the publishers: that looks to have been a single volume, with Parsley Peel running from p353-358. So as far as I can see, the page no & volume for reference 4 match the C&W second edition, not the first edition for which the book details are given. For the other Bourne references I think the page number & edition are right, but the volume number is wrong. (If so, that's all my illusions about GAs shattered (!)). I haven't checked which edition the ref 4 facts come from; the text looks much the same, so I suspect either would do (and it's well past my bedtime) Rjccumbria (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)