Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. Give me some time to read through and review it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, ChrisGualtieri. You are probably aware of the previous review, but in case it's of an help, it's at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that review is something I read over and I found it to be well.... a bit nitpicky, but it did result in some real errors being found and I've done some spot checks on wording and sources. For instance: "Balfour was born in about 1775." - born in about.... when I read it, it sounds weird - but it is UK-style. The only thing I know is that the note on the source being used states: He swore on oath, 31 Mar. 1795, that he was ‘above the age of 17 years, and under the age of 22 years’ (BL OIOC J/1/15, f. 274). According to S.H. Zebel, Balfour: a Political Biog. 1, he was b. in 1773. This is more detailed and might be suitable for a note, so the reader understands the window of time. Other than that... it is looking good so far on my checks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so thorough, Chris. My concern with the prev review is not really the nitpickiness — I value attention to detail — as the fact that it was in so many cases plain wrong :(

I note your comment on year of birth, but I'll save any further comment until you have finished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm glad you're getting a new review, BrownHairedGirl! Good luck, Prhartcom (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a solid half hour trying to find faults or issues with the sources. Though I'll provide a found source to replace the one questionable one in the article: Milne, who spent almost £5,000 on Berwick elections, 1820-3, assisted the 8th earl of Lauderdale’s son-in-law James Balfour* at the July and November 1820 by-elections and purchased the Berwickshire estate of Milne Graden in 1821, notwithstanding his second wife’s wishes. [1] Using the History of Parliament website, the Leigh Rayment source can be removed. I did other spot checks on things like the china and such, and these checked out. Question though "iron workings".... you mean "iron works" or no? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also "However Lauderdale" and "Instead he" need a comma in-between. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any other issues. Do you think anything else needs to be fixed or addressed before it passes? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisGualtieri

Many thanks for checking so thoroughly, and sorry for being slow to reply. I have been through all your comments, and I think I have implemented all but one:

His age. I have incorporated a footnote per your suggestion[2]
I added two references to replace Leigh Raymnet: the HistOfParl one you suggest, and The Times report on the petition which overturned Milne's election [3]
Added the missing commas which you spotted [4]

I didn't change the phrase "iron workings". My understanding is that "iron workings" refer to the mines or quarries where the ore is extracted from the ground, whereas "iron works" refers to a place where iron is processed. "Workings" was the phrase used in the sources, so I thought it best to retain that usage. What do you think?

Thanks again for the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. GA Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]