Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ListasBot (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 27 May 2009 (Added listas to WPBiography (used sort value from article's {{Lifetime}}). Did I get it wrong?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet is currently a Royalty, nobility and heraldry good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

An entry from Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 March, 2007.

Comments

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 honestly don't know. My source was a Telegraph obituary, which was very discreet about such matters. Ewan's quote suggests intersex, though - his comments seem to imply that the doctors could have registered him male but decided on female. Shimgray | talk | 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

also this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/01/nest01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/01/ixportal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.56.156 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite interested to find out his/her actual (physical) gender... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.209.49 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rated

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)

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 Yobmod (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, your timing was perfect...

I've had real trouble tracking down a photograph. There's a small number (mostly low-quality) in the book - none on the cover - but the only copy of it I have access to is in the Bodleian, and there's no way I can practically make a copy of the images in it as a result. I've not found any contemporary newspaper photographs that I can easily get at, either, and there's nothing in the NPG.

As for online images to scavenge under fair-use, again, a blank. I've only turned up the one, and it's so grainy as to be of virtually no use. Still, plenty of time to keep looking... Shimgray | talk | 10:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I've been mulling over these changes ("Pronoun issues resolved", 18 April) for a while, and on the whole I'm not comfortable with them.

The pronoun issue is one where stylistic preference varies, and I concur the MoS does suggest we should use masculine throughout, but the rest of it is less good. With these changes, we're consistently using "Ewan" rather than "Betty" to refer to the subject before 1945ish; I've never seen anything suggesting "Ewan" was used at all, by the subject or anyone else, before that date, and it seems a bit anachronistic to use it in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the subject wanted it that way.

(Forbes's biography is charmingly vague, omitting any details of personal identity in early life, even when you're looking for it. There really isn't much to draw on.)

I've removed the one part that actually changed the meaning of the text - the legal challenge to inheritance was not based on anatomy alone! - but I'll leave the other edits standing for the moment. Any thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I shall be undertaking this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

   • Article is referenced

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

   • Apparently neutral

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • no cleanup banners

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • no edit-warring

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • not applicable

No quickfail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • This is currently not well written. I would suggest enlisted the help of an experienced copy-editor. You may be able to get help at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Much improved, would need further work for FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
   • Specific points:

   • Many sentences are too long, with several sub-ordinate clauses. Consider splitting and simplifying. Examples: John Forbes-Sempill was a landowner and soldier, who had served with the Lovat Scouts and then the Black Watch in the South African War, before succeeding to the title of Lord Sempill in 1905; he would later go on to command the 8th Battalion Black Watch in the First World War, and was wounded at the Battle of Loos. , Ewan was raised female, but with a childhood dominated by a widespread gender insecurity; after refusing to go away to a girls' school, he was educated at home, and the culmination of this unhappy upbringing was coming out as a debutante in London in the late 1920s.

   • I've given it a thorough reworking, and hopefully it's in a better state now. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • Throughout Ewan is used interchangeably with he and occasionally Forbes. The accepted style is to use the simple family name, e.g. Forbes. Conisder reducing the number of sentences which begin with he. The article could do with an infobox, e.g. Template:Infobox Peer. I would suggest seeking a picture, if at all possible. The lead needs to be expandede, thuink of it as an executive summary of the article in three or four sentences at least.
   • also, please checkout WP:WikiProject_Peerage for guidelines on a suitable style. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   • The major problem here is likely to be the inheritance section; "Forbes" is going to get confusing quite fast there. There's also the complicating fact that he wasn't simply Forbes until the 1960s; he was Forbes-Sempill. Whatever we do here, we're going to hit problems of either anachronism or inconsistency; I'll have a think about how best to handle this. I concur on too many pronouns! Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Pronouns are now (somewhat) omitted, and "Forbes" is used throughout rather than "Ewan". A few people are referred to at times by forenames where the full name would be confusing in the text. Lede expanded to two paragraphs, and a (short) infobox added. There's a discussion above about the difficulty of sourcing a picture; I'm keeping my eyes out, but I've had no success at finding one which is both usable and which I can physically get a copy of. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is well referenced, apart from By the time he returned from the Continent, Ewan's heart was set on studying medicine, but his father refused to fund his studies, arguing that there was no need for him to study further, since there was more than enough work to be done managing and maintaining the estate. Ewan resolved to fund his own studies, aiming to put aside £1,000 to cover the costs. which does not seem to be supported. also later noting that the curriculum was "very lax" Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Fine now Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • My notes confirm this is entirely from Forbes p.50, as cited at the end of the paragraph. I'm fairly sure the "very lax" comment is also from Forbes, but it's not in my notes so I'll drop it out. Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • As far as it is possible to ascertain references are to reliable sources. ref #25 & #26 are to the same page so I have combined them as #25a & #25b, also Forbes p31 & page 11 Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of OR Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is reasonably broad in its scope, but I am surprised that there is not more material which could adduced from the sources. I would like to see some explanation of why this baronetcy is referred to as being of Newfoundland. Who granted the original title and when? A little more detail about his later life after the inheritance case would be good. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Again this doesn't stick out like a sore thumb anymore. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • I think we've got about all there can be about the later life without digging in primary sources; there's probably some coverage of him in other people's memoirs, but there's no easy way of tracking those down. He led a surprisingly quiet life.
   • As for the baronetcy, it seems a bit tangential to me - it's all in Forbes Baronets. Would a short section, split out from the early life, about the family and its two titles be useful? It'd be a good opportunity to discuss the inheritance issue... hrm. That might work, actually. Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Family background section added; later life is still pretty thin, but I've broken it out into a new section so it at least feels a bit longer. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • The article is focussed on the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The article mostly adheres to a WP:NPOV, but there are some WP:weasel words, e.g. cynically, sharply,

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • I find no evidence of edit-warring Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • the image used is correctly tagged and licensed Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • appropriately used with a suitable caption Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • 3 wikilinks: Homburg, Beltona & elder are linked to disambiguation pages, they need to be fixed, also the points raised above. On hold for improvements for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   • You have asked at my talk page regarding the changes from she and Betty to he and Ewan. Yes consistency is good, but you should be using the short family name Forbes, rather than the given name Ewan. I also think that too many successive sentences start with he. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Mmm. I've tried to work on it, but there's still some parts with three successive sentences beginning this way; not sure how best to reduce that any further, though. Otherwise, all concerns have been (hopefully!) addressed. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   • OK, I am happy with the artcile now. Congratulations on a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)