Revision as of 22:12, 9 March 2009 editYobot (talk | contribs)Bots4,733,870 editsm Tagging(Plugin++) baronets-work-group=yes. using AWB← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:48, 9 March 2009 edit undoAndrew Gray (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,917 edits refactor, tidyNext edit → |
Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
|
|
|
|
also this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/01/nest01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/01/ixportal.html <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
also this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/01/nest01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/01/ixportal.html <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
I would be quite interested to find out his/her actual (physical) gender... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rated== |
|
==Rated== |
Line 24: |
Line 26: |
|
I rated this article as a C. It would be B, if he was only famous for his gender, but he was also an aristzocrat, so would be notable for that anyway. Currently the article reduces him to only his gender. Sources shuold exist for all aristocratic debutants, so expanding other areas of his life should be easy. Similarly for the Barony. I'm sure there must be more to him than his gender. |
|
I rated this article as a C. It would be B, if he was only famous for his gender, but he was also an aristzocrat, so would be notable for that anyway. Currently the article reduces him to only his gender. Sources shuold exist for all aristocratic debutants, so expanding other areas of his life should be easy. Similarly for the Barony. I'm sure there must be more to him than his gender. |
|
] (]) 09:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 09:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
⚫ |
I would be quite interested to find out his/her actual (physical) gender... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Woah, that was a quick improvment! I've re-rated it to B, which it clearly is now. GA beckons, although a portrait would make that a much easier pass imo (maybe a scan of the biogrpahy cover would make fair-use?). Great job1 ] (]) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
::Woah, that was a quick improvment! I've re-rated it to B, which it clearly is now. GA beckons, although a portrait would make that a much easier pass imo (maybe a scan of the biogrpahy cover would make fair-use?). Great job1 ] (]) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
Interesting and curious. Was Sir Ewan intersex and assigned as a baby to the female gender only to discover that he felt male or was he a "true" woman, who simply decided to become a man? pmcray 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I rated this article as a C. It would be B, if he was only famous for his gender, but he was also an aristzocrat, so would be notable for that anyway. Currently the article reduces him to only his gender. Sources shuold exist for all aristocratic debutants, so expanding other areas of his life should be easy. Similarly for the Barony. I'm sure there must be more to him than his gender.
Yobmod (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)