Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Macpherson Grant/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

---

Margaret Macpherson Grant

Nominator(s): GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

• When/where was the lead image first published?

• How many Proctors were involved?

• For how long did she attend school?

• When and why did the brother go to India?

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?

• When/where was the lead image first published?

I'm looking into that now.

• How many Proctors were involved?

Three - I've named them in the article now.

• For how long did she attend school?

The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.

• When and why did the brother go to India?

Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

Good call, I've reworded that sentence.

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

1780 - I've added that.

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

As discussed above.

• How are you ordering sources without authors?

I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, did you want to take another run through now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I don't have any further comments at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
• "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".

SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.

So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.

Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.

• We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A little more: Took a look at the "Inheritance" section, and did some light copy-editing rather than making a list here. A couple of little issues, but nothing major. I'm inclined to support this, assuming that the other sections are of a similar quality. But I'll stop here for now until the nominator responds, just in case my changes or suggestions induce angry spluttering! Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.

Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Reworded - is that better?

Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: I've done a little more copy-editing, but nothing major. There was one little sourcing issue, which I think I fixed, but please do look at the edit summaries to make sure you're happy with everything. I did a little more source checking as well, and there are no issues. The only thing I wondered was if we know what happened to Charlotte Temple after Grant's death? Nice work overall. Sarastro (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues. Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Despite the level of commentary, we are creeping up on the one-month mark without sufficient levels of review and support. I've added this to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived in the coming days if it doesn't receive more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

• Marker down for me to comment - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Early life

• "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
• Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?

So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?

The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.

Inheritance

• "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?

Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.

With Charlotte Temple

• "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")

I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.

• "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?

I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

That's my lot: all very minor points in an excellent first visit to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing SchroCat - I think I've addressed most of your points, but I've got a query above about your thoughts on the inflation-adjusted figures - happy to do what you suggest, just not sure whether to keep the adjusted figures in the body of the text or shift it all down into the notes section. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: A few minor queries all dealt with. I'll leave it to the nom to sort out the inflation information, but it won't affect my support whichever way they choose to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I have made some input to the development of this article since I assessed it for GA and so feel reluctant to submit a formal review. However, I have had no input into either the sourcing or the images. I note that reviews of both seem to be taking place above, but if any help is needed, including the first-timer's citation spot check, I would be happy to assist if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers.

• Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised please.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild Question - where I've got physical copies of the books this is no problem, but for the Cant (2003) source I accessed it online. Annoyingly, the URL it used to be at no longer seems to work, Internet Archive can't find it, and any online reference to it (e.g. WorldCat) gives the ISBN without any hyphens. I could standardise the ISBNs by simply removing all of the hyphens in all of the ISBNs, but that seems to go against WP:ISBN which says you should use the hyphens where they are known. So, what's least bad - no hyphens at all, or inconsistency? If we definitely need hyphens throughout, I could take a trip out to Boston Spa where I see the BL outpost has a copy, but I don't know when I could manage that - certainly not in the next week. (As an aside - if I have a ISBN as well, is it also worth putting in a WorldCat number, or is that overkill?) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Gog, but Girth Summit "The thirteen digit number is divided into five parts of variable length ... The current ISBN-13 will be prefixed by "978" ; Group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers (English ISBNs start with either 978-0 or 978-1); Publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group; Title identifier which identifies a particular title or edition of a title; Check digit is the single digit at the end of the ISBN which validates the ISBN."[2] Knowing 1st 2 and last 1, seemed logical to find the publisher code (which I couldn't find here), but looking it up here would appear your number would be 978-0-9505994-7-2. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that my better-than-the-real-Gog doppelgogger has put it well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both - I've done the Cant book as you describe, and I've followed the groupings of McKean and Pevsner from the books themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Source formatting - pass Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

• Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?

Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?

No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK - I've changed this and refer to her as Macpherson Grant throughout. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?

That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.

I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, I think the average reader is more likely to be more familiar with locations in London than Moray, but I take your point - I've removed it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.

It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?

Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". Cassianto^Talk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.

I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.

Reworded.GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this meets the criteria at the moment, if I'm honest, as the writing seems a bit shabby and could do with a copy edit. Was this peer reviewed? Cassianto^Talk 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £36,000,000 in 2024 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.

  Took me a while to figure out how to do this, but I think I've done it correctly now. I haven't converted every single sum of money in the article, but when there is a significant change in date I've put them in - happy to go through and add them to all of them for consistency if you think that would help.

• "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.

  I've added footnotes in for all mentions of currency now - as you say, better to be consistent.

• "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.

  Agreed, removed.

• "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.

  Agreed, reworded.

• Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.

  Gone.

• "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.

  Reworded.

• "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See WP:AWW

  Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?

  You're correct - they bred livestock, exhibiting in country shows and the like. Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.

  Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet?

Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?

• Reworded.

• "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.

  It originally said 'her father', but an earlier reviewer suggested that it was ambiguous as to whether we meant MG's or Temple's father. I've gone with Macpherson Grant's father.

• "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.

  Reworded.

Cassianto - thanks again for these detailed comments. I think I've addresses all of them now, hopefully haven't broken anything else in the process. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GS, seen those. I'll continue with it later, if I get the chance. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Around this time, Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander of the Royal Navy,[40] visited Aberlour." -- around what time? New para, new section, new date.

  Reworded.

• See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.

  Agree with your change, thanks.

• See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.

  Agree with your change, thanks.

• "Shortly before the marriage, Temple had written to Simon Keir, a partner of Macpherson Grant's agents at Milne & Co., directing that his accounting of sales no longer be sent to Macpherson Grant directly..." -- close succession of "directing" and "directly".

  Changed 'directing' to 'requesting' (which is possibly a better choice of words, since I'm not clear she actually had the authority to direct him).

• "Dissatisfied with this new arrangement, and with what he saw as Temple's interfering in his affairs..." -- was there ever any likelihood of him being satisfied? I doubt it. I would change "dissatisfied" with unhappy.

  Done

• "By this time, with Temple gone, Macpherson Grant was depressed, mentally unstable and drinking heavily. → "With Temple now gone, Macpherson Grant became depressed, mentally unstable and drunk heavily." Also, depression is depression, drunk heavily (as we've said earlier), yes, means she drunk lots of alcohol, but how was she mentally unstable? One is left questioning this, unlike the other two you mention.

  Reworded per your suggestion. 'Mentally unstable' was a reference to Lang's assertion that she was going through a psychotic episode. I've reworded this so that we're attributing it to Lang - do you think that's OK, or should we cut this (since Lang is an historian rather than a psychiatrist)?

• "She died on 14 April 1877..." Who did? We mention both Temple and MG in the preceding sentence.

  Do you think this is really necessary? MMG is the subject of the previous sentence, with Temple just mentioned in an aside - don't you think it would be awkward to use her (rather lengthy) name again here? (I'll make the change if you really think it woule be better).

  If fact, we also mention Lang, so that's three females in the preceding sentence. I'll leave it up to you, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch that she had gifted to Macpherson Grant, and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." → "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." Cuts our the awkward repetition of MG's name.

  Done.

That's all from me. I can see me supporting this once these have been addressed.  Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassianto - that all looks reasonable and doable. Something has come up at work that means I'll have very little time for a couple of days, but I hope to be able to get this done towards the end of the week, or over the weekend at the latest. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassianto - I've made all the changes you suggested bar one - let me know if you really think that one is necessary. Thanks again for the very detailed review, most appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Support based on the above fixes. I have really enjoyed reading this article and I hope to see you back here again soon, Girth Summit. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

The prose has not been as carefully checked as it could have been. I agree with Cassianto that a peer review would have been a good idea. A few points:

• William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.

• Sorry, I don't quite understand this point - what's wrong with William Robertson? (Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.)

• Two letters were the wrong way round in "Roberston". I've amended it. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
• Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing

• I think there were instances where I thought it would help differentiate between her and her husband, who had been referred to in earlier sentences. I've removed it if you think it's clear enough without.

• The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.

• I didn't know that - thanks, I've changed it.

• MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.

• The sources aren't consistent. I've tried to maintain consistency within the article, I think the only instance of McPherson is in one of the sources.

• "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.

• Fixed.

• A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)

• Fixed

Well now. This is the name of an organisation, a commercial partnership. Should the name not be given as it was used at the time? However that was - I have no idea whether messrs A and W styled themselves A. and W. respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Behave, Gog! The MoS bids us silently amend non-WP formatting and punctuation in such cases, and in any case I'll bet you a large glass of red at the Wehwalt Arms that in the 19th century this, like any other firm, would have put full stops after initials. We didn't start getting rid of them till the 1960s. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".

• fixed

• "ball room" – one word, according to the OED

• fixed

• "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)

• Another one I didn't know - fixed.

• Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.

• Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit _(blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.

• I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  I struggled to think of a better word - can they be goods? Thinking about it, I'm not sure that the sentence added anything, so I've removed it and made a slight change to the following one.

• "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".

• I've reworded this sentence.

• "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?

• Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks - agree with Sarastro's change.

• "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?

• Added (Lang supports this, although it might be better to dig out a ref to the original report?)
  • I plan to toddle along to the British Library on Friday and can have a look in the Evening Standard archive if you'd like me to. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Afterthought: I should add that I don't think your present source is in any way inadequate. Tim riley talk 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Tim riley If you're going there anyway, that would be brilliant, thanks. According to Lang, it's 14/08/1875, Issue15928 p. 3. Not having read it myself, I didn't want to cite it directly, but if you can check it easily that would be very helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Will do. I'm down there researching one of the founders of the National Trust. I may try to press-gang you into peer reviewing that article in due course, and you can get your own back for my nitpicking here. I'll report back here on the citation, or on your talk page if the article is promoted by Friday. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• If I can be of any help at your article I'd be delighted. I'm not sure how useful I'll be, since I think you've already demonstrated that your copy editing skills far surpass my own, but if a pair of fresh eyeballs attached to a semi-functional brain would be of use, they're at your disposal. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The date and page are correct. The article (unsigned) is headed "Grouse Shooting: The Scotch Moors". It says that Captain Yeatman "bagged 26 brace of grouse, two hares and two plovers". Plover butties, anyone? Tim riley talk 13:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that out Tim riley - much appreciated, I've added the citation to the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "a burial aisle she had previously erected" – as she was dead at this point, the "previously" seems surplus to requirements.

• done

• "lord advocate" – the lower case seems a touch Guardianish. The WP article gives the post its capital letters, and so does the OED, and so would I. And as there is only one Lord Advocate at any one time, I'd add a pair of commas to turn "presiding in the case" from a restrictive to a non-restrictive phrase.

• I wouldn't want to get involved in any arguments about capitalising job titles! Happy to change.

• "and a diamond brooch that had belonged to her" – not clear which of the two women "her" is here.

• Clarified

• "The press noted at the time that the closure of the case denied the public "the full revelation of a curious, an interesting, and instructive romance"" – I don't think you can reasonably attribute one newspaper's words to "the press".

• I've reworded this.

• "He is commemorated by a memorial at St Barnabas Church in Sturminster Newton in Dorset". – Of doubtful relevance to Margaret Macpherson Grant, I think.

• I'd prefer to keep this in - I appreciate that it's not directly related to MMG herself, but another reviewer expressed an interest in what happened to Temple/Yeatman after MMG's death - I wasn't able to find much other than this, and it seemed interesting enough to include it. I'll take it out if you feel strongly about it.

• Not a bit! I don't seek to twist any arms, and it's your drafting, not mine. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the info-box "Occupation: Philanthropist" strikes an incongruous note. We don't have our occupations in our passports any more but if we still did I can't imagine writing "Philanthropist" as my occupation.
  • There was a senior civil servant (a member of MI5 or 6, I seem to recall), who had "Gentleman" as his occupation. He was queried on the point on arrival in Australia, and asked the passport control officer "Why, do you not have them here?" And people think the English are arrogant? Pshaw! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've cut it.

I hope these comments are of help. Tim riley talk 09:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley - I really appreciate your detailed review, very helpful indeed. I've addressed most of your points, and made a few comments above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll be back after a further read-through, to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley talk 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

Comments from me to follow, but it'll be over the next few days, I'm afraid. One immediate query:

• "entering into what was described as a form of marriage" (lead) and "Her relationship with Temple was described as being much like a marriage" (With Charlotte Temple). - It would have been pretty surprising for the time if the relationship was publicly described as akin to a marriage and I'm not seeing the contemporary sources that do so describe it, beyond the "remarkable tomfoolery" comment, which isn't quite the same thing. Do we have contemporary sources that do describe the relationship as "like a marriage" and, if we do, can we cite them? KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Hi KJP1 - the phrase comes from Shaw and Gordon source (1882) - page 181 (near the top): "...something like a marriage had taken place between them. Each pledged herself to celibacy; Miss Grant 'married' Miss Temple, placing on the latter's marriage-finger a suitable ring... ...Miss Temple not only reciprocated the remarkable affection, but likewise manifested similar extraordinary proofs of it - she termed herself 'wifie' in her letters to Miss Grant...". Does that address your concern? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It very well might, if it could be included. But I’m not seeing it in the article, unless I’m overlooking it. KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It was cited after the sentence about the tomfoolery - since it supported both sentences, I thought it would be OK to cite it once, but I've added another reference to it now. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, not making myself clear. I wasn’t looking for a cite but rather for an explanation, within the body of the article, as to who was describing their relationship as akin to a marriage. Were the sources that did so newspapers or what? Were they contemporaneous? Something like: Gordon and Shaw/Moray County history/whoever, in their subsequent reporting of the affair, described the relationship as “something like a marriage”. Hope this is clearer. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, gotcha. I'll add some attribution into the text just now, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - just what I was after. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay on this. I'll be back to finish up tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delays in getting back to this. So:

Early Life and family

• "trading out of a property on Billiter Square" - can you check the spelling of the Square. The source has it as "Biiliter Square". Assuming it's this, [3], it could just be that the source has a typo, or that the spelling of its name changed, as it clearly has over time.

  I'm sure it's a typo - the source actually spells it both ways (first as Biiliter, but further down as Billiter) - Billiter Square seems actually to have existed, and while Google does throw up a few hits for Biiliter Square, from a quick glance they all look like typos (or possibly errors in machine-reading of old print newspapers) to me.

• ""with help from the bookkeepers and overseers" - links?

  Good call, done

• "issued by the High Court of Chancery" - And again?

  Done

Adult life

• "the output of the estates varied with changes in conditions" - Economic conditions? Weather conditions?

  Going back to the source, it's talking about the economic conditions - variability in prices, increase in labour costs (post-abolition of slavery). I've clarified.

With Charlette Temple

• "high sheriff of Wiltshire" - if it's MoS, just ignore me, but the lower cases look odd to me. They're upper case in the main article.

  Done

Philanthropy

• "which was built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" - being uber-picky, Pevsner gives a construction period of 1866-1869 (Highland and Islands, Buildings of Scotland, John Gifford, Penguin, 1992, isbn 9780140710717, p=188).

  Thanks - I don't have a copy of that one, I've added those dates. Can you check that I've hyphenated the ISBN properly in the sources? Gog's already done a source formatting check, don't want to break anything.

Temple's marriage

• "a retired commander of the Royal Navy" - "in" rather than "of"?

  Not sure about this one - since he was retired, can we still say 'in'? I'll change if you're sure it's an improvement.

That's all from me. I think it a comprehensive account of an interesting individual. The prose has benefitted from input here and I'll be pleased to support once the nominator has had the opportunity to look at the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1 - I really appreciate your input. I've addressed most of the points, a couple of queries above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

All looking good. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from TRM

• " with Alexander Donaldson and Alexander Thomson, who died in 1807 and 1818 respectively" reads like a very odd construction to me...

  Reworded

• "forty-two"/"twenty-two-year-old"/" forty-third" any reason why we're not using "42" and "22-year-old" and "43rd"?

  Personal preference - are digits preferred by the MOS? Happy to change if necessary.

  I think MOS allows for numbers expressible in one or two words to be written out, so no issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• " the organ for Inverness Cathedral, built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" the organ was built in 1866?

  I think so, but probably not by Alex Ross - I've added 'which was'

• " at St Peter's Church, Eaton Square in" probably a GEOCOMMA needed after Square.

  Done

• General: you discuss her "relationship" in detail and allude to some kind of homosexual relationship, but neither lesbian nor gay nor homosexual is noted with reference, yet there are LGBT categories here. I'm not aware of if this is "okay" because the LGBT nature is implied strongly enough, or if we should seek for stronger reliable sources stating it plainly? Just a thought.

  No source outright describes her as gay, or a lesbian, which is why I haven't directly used that language in the article itself. I think the article has relevance to the LGBT Studies wikiproject, but perhaps it is going to far to have the LGBT person categories on there - happy enough to remove them if you think that would be the right move?

  I think it wise, or at least remove them temporarily and perhaps see if the LGBT wikiproject have any thoughts, I'm happy to go with a consensus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise it's a very nice article.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man - changes made, couple of comments/questions above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, a couple of replies above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories removed, and I've left a note about it at the WikiProject talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Then it's a yes from me, and a yes from him. Cheers, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(PS I'm supposed to state that I'll be submitting this review as part of my entry in the WikiCup, so there, I've said it... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

Comments from Gleeanon409

• Not sure where to land comments about LGBTQ categories so feel free to adjust the formatting to make them work.
  • We need no proof of sexual relationships—in most cases a near impossibility—for these categories. Often the only evidence that LGBTQ people even existed was criminal records for euphemistic physical activities.
  • In this case you have two women marrying each other, not sure you really need much more than that. That they exchanged rings as well should clear any remaining doubts. It’s unsurprising that great pains are made to spell out that they didn’t have sex as likely that would be just too scandalous to survive. To me this is all along historical erasure of LGBTQ romantic relationships. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIIW, I am inclined to agree with Gleeanon409. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Gog. I think Gleeanon409 has rather too much a 21st-century take on the matter. Context is vital. In the post-Freudian era people obsess endlessly about sexual intercourse at the expense of considering the wider nature of relationships. It seems to me that the main author has got the balance spot-on, making due reference to what the reader may infer was a lesbian relationship, without making a production number of it. It doesn't matter whether or not the relationship was physical. From the 19th century citations it seems that the two women's contemporaries didn't make a big deal of things, and I think we should follow suit. They were plainly an item, but what that itemness consisted of is neither here nor there. Tim riley talk 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear - a frequent occurrence - I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on. I was supporting Gleeanon409 in so far as they disagree with the LGBT category tags being removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, I'd keep them, I think. Labels are tiresome but we all need some reference points in putting people in context. It would be pushing it a bit to suggest that LGBTQ is an inappropriate tag. Tim riley talk 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was pointing out, for lack of better term, researchers’ bias. If one isn’t looking for evidence of LGBTQ-identity, it’s quite common to never see, and therefore acknowledge it exists. In historical cases, that anything non-heteronormative is noticed is a clue that a LGBTQ story is there but has been systematically erased—for whatever reasons—by people who had the ability to shape or write the history. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In another case, where it was explicitly known that a woman had serial long-term relationships with same-sex partners, but the exact nature of those relationships could not be ascertained, we opted to use the category "same-sex relationship", instead of LGBT categories, and keep the LGBT project banner on the talk page. Don't know if that is helpful, but it does serve to not obliterate the relevance of different types of relationships in the period. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If the subject of the article was in a same-sex relationship, which no one seriously seems to be questioning, our modern construct of LGBTQ or similar is the appropriate categories. I would restore them and ask people like @Bearcat: who are familiar with LGBTQ issues, and Wikipedia’s category system to weigh in. Ultimately categories help our readers and building the encyclopedia so no rush. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This exchange is worthwhile and thoughtful, but I don't think it belongs on this FAC page, which isn't concerned with categories. Is it all right if I transplant the whole section to the article talk page? Tim riley talk 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I’d suggest waiting a bit until the discussion is over. Then copying there for documentation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This minor issue has no bearing on whether this article is promoted or not, so I don't see why this has to be discussed here and not on the talk page. I suggest moving it as soon as possible. Cassianto^Talk 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man brought it up in the context of their review. I don't think that further discussion should be moved unless they are content with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's fine, but when compared to the criteria, for me, this doesn't seem like a make or break issue. Supports should be based on the criteria and this meets it, with or without what cats it carries. Therefore, it should be moved to the talk page if this topic requires complex discussion. Given that the nom hasn't even answered yet, I would like to assume good faith with the nom that this wasn't an "attempt" to do the LGBTQ community a disservice by erasing anything. Cassianto^Talk 00:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to wait until Bearcat or someone else who’s versed in LGBTQ categories can offer advice. Unless there’s a pressing need? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto I have just replied in detail to the similar comment you posted, addressed to me, on Gleeanon409's talk page. The conversation is becoming fragmented. Perhaps you would like to move, or copy, that part of it to here? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on Gleeanan409's talk page has nothing to do with this FAC, more your comments on Gleeanon409's talk page, so I'll leave them there. Cassianto^Talk 10:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your insightful comments. My personal view is that the categories are probably OK; I removed them in response to what seemed to be a reasonable concern by a reviewer, and I will be entirely happy to reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. I see Bearcat has been pinged as someone well-versed in this area, so I'll wait to see if they comment, but if not my feeling fron this discussions is that there is a rough consensus to reinstate them. I'd be happy for further discussion of this to take place on the article's talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. I've been accused of some odd things in the past, but some of the insinuations dotted around Wikipedia are startling offensive. My comment was entirely derived from what I considered to be a lack of appropriate verifiable sources for categories in a FAC, and it has somehow been completely corrupted into me somehow making "inappropriate" comments, homophobic comments, attempting to erasure LGBT history etc etc. Thanks for that, noted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No, just no. I don't know who you are responding to, but with respect, you seem to be confusing two separate discussions. Nobody is accusing you of anything of the sort; in fact, nobody is accusing anyone of being homophobic. There are two discussions taking place; this one, to do with your legitimate comments re the cats, and this one, where somebody else who used an emotive word (not intentional) to describe the nom's act of deleting the cats, which I assume had been done as a result of your comments in this review. This diff is what the other discussion centres around, more specifically the word "attempt" which to me implies that someone was attempting to erase all traces of someone's homosexuality, which of course, could be homophobic. I did not believe that that was the case, especially since the nom had yet to reply, and "attempt", with much respect to Gog, was removed. Cassianto^Talk 13:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that Gleeanon has accepted that this was all done in good faith - noone is suggesting any wrong doing by TRM (or anyone else). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• So, it's been a few days now, and no further discussion of this has taken place here, the article talk page, or at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies (aside from a note that there is a related discussion going on at Wikidata). So far, one editor (The Rambling Man) has expressed concerns about including the tags, and three editors (Tim riley, Gog the Mild and Gleeanon409 have indicated that they think they are appropriate. I'm going to interpret that as a consensus to reinstate them, with a note for the record that I would be happy for anyone who remains concerned to restart a conversation on the talk page, or to kick off an RfC. Thanks all for your views. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems fair and reasonable, no need to hold up the FAC process further. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Since there's a lot of text above, I thought a quick note might be helpful to summarise it. Nikkimaria, who performed the first review, indicated that they didn't think the article was quite there yet; since then, Sarastro1, SchroCat, Tim riley, Cassianto, The Rambling Man and KJP1 have made suggestions for improvement, and have all noted their support after I followed up on them. I don't think there are any outstanding actions from any review. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Tks for the summary, GS, but checking that sort of thing is why they pay us the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias

• "The Macphersons married on 30 April 1825,[3] and had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson, in 1828." I found this a weird inclusion; it was mostly superfluous to the subject of the article, and took us back in time. Personally, I'd just note that she had an older brother, and move on.
• "..attended school in Hampstead.." I know it has a wikilink, but further inline clarification of where Hampstead is would be appreciated, to avoid me having to click that link and leave this article.
• "..trading out of a property on Billiter Square." This feels like excessive, unnecessary detail? What does this add about the subject of the article?
• "Resolution of the various lawsuits was not completed until 1861, seven years after Macpherson Grant came into possession of the estates." It feels odd to be told this before being told in the next section that she inherited his estate.
• Wikilink pimento.
• On the first use, you write "Milne & Co", and on the second "Milne & Co.". Be consistent.
• In my opinion, almost all of the Later events section is beyond the scope of this article.

In general, this is a good piece of work, but I have some concerns about how well it balances being comprehensive with remaining focused on the main topic. It has plenty of support above, so maybe I'm seeing things that aren't really there, but it just seems slightly aimless at times. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I was looking to close out this long-running nom and as I read through the above I felt that we could probably leave these things to be actioned post-promotion, until I got to the last bullet point re. Later events, which is more substantial and really should be considered here. Girth Summit, can you address that last point first? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ian Rose - I'll read through {{|Harrias}}'s points and respond fully this afternoon. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Harrias - first of all, thank you for your detailed review, I appreciate your suggestions and your candour about the balance between being comprehensive and maintaining focus. I've implemented the copy editing/minor changes that you suggested, but would like to explore some of the more substantive points further.

• Her brother. There seems to be some disagreement about this. An earlier reviewer suggested including more about her brother, such as why he went out to India, how he died and so on - unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out anything more about his life, but I'd be inclined to keep what we do know about him, including his date of birth, in the article. I take your point about jumping back and forth in time however, so I've reordered the paragraph to list the births chronologically - does that meet your concerns?
  • This reads much better now, thank you. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Billiter Square I'm not wedded to this exactly, but I think it's relevant. Alexander Grant built Aberlour House and made it his official residence, but the sources suggest that he never actually lived there - it seems relevant to indicate that sources show he actually lived at an address in London.
  • I think it is sufficient to say that "although it is doubtful that he ever actually lived there". Also, at the moment, the article says that he traded out of a property there, which doesn't necessarily indicate that he lived there. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lawsuits I take your point, and thought about how I could restructure this so that we mention the resolution of the lawsuits at the right point in terms of chronology. I couldn't see an obvious way to do that elegantly however, since we don't really discuss the lawsuits again in the next section - we'd be breaking up a single paragraph covering them into two chunks, which would probably end up repeating information unnecessarily. I've reworded that sentence somewhat to shift the focus slightly in an attempt to address this concern - does that look any better to you?
  • This also reads better now, thank you. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Later events I disagree with you on this one. Other FA biographies have much longer sections with titles such as 'Impact and Legacy', where we discuss the lasting effects the subject's life had on society. MMG had no children, and she wasn't in a position of political or intellectual influence that would have allowed her to leave the sort of mark on society that we might typically discuss in sections like this. However, her impact on the architecture of the region was not insignificant: both Aberlour House and St Margaret's church are nationally significant buildings, one of which she remodelled extensively, the other she founded but did not live to see completed. The orphanage she founded went on to become the second largest such institute in the country after her death, and still operates as a children's welfare charity (which I plan to get around to writing an article about at some point). I don't think that it's beyond the scope of the article to have a short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death.
  • It looks like we fundamentally disagree here. While I would not object to a "short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death" I do disagree with that as a description of what is present. The first paragraph, fine, though even here I would suggest that the additional detail about their son, such as the memorial, is unnecessary.
  • "James William Grant of Wester Elchies, another member of the Grant family, purchased the ruin of the Aberlour church from the other legatees, after it burned in 1861." What is the relevance of this? Also, 1861 isn't a later event, it takes us back to the Inheritance section time-frame.
  • The remainder of that paragraph (slightly reworded to succinctly explain who William Grant is) is fine for the reasons you lay out.
  • "William Grant died in 1877" This was mentioned in the last paragraph as things stand.
  • Given that Aberlour House (building) has its own article, and was built by someone else, I think the final paragraph can be vastly reduced. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review - looking forward to your feedback on the changes I've made, and the points I've made above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK Harrias- thanks for your speedy response. I've trimmed the Billiter Square sentence, and I've cut back on the final section, removing detail about the house (which, as you say, is detailed at its own article), and some of the stuff about the old Aberlour Church, which I agree was a bit confusing since it jumped back in time 20 years. On the point about Temple's son, another review further up suggested putting more in about Temple and her family after MMG's death - I couldn't find much unfortunately, but I thought this was an interesting point and I'd prefer to keep this in if you don't mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think that's much better. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Just three relatively minor points from me left, Girth Summit:

• Isn't "benefited" the US spelling? Presumably this article uses BrEng? (Moved this from above.)
• Why are the images placed on the left, rather than the right, which is more normal? I'm not keen on the aesthetic.
• It would be worth clarfying and bringing together the two "William Grant" paragraphs in the Later events section now. The repetition is a bit odd, almost leading one to wonder if it is two different people. Also, I think it would be worth specifically highlighting that St Margaret's Church was completed after his death. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Harrias - you're right about 'benefitted', I missed that before. (My collaborator on this article writes in AmEn usually - I tried to find all the inconsistencies, but that one didn't jump out at me.) Image placement was purely personal - I find having them all on the right a bit boring, but nobody else has commented either way so I've changed this. I've also combined the two 'William Grant' paragraphs as you suggested - I agree that that is better. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries; good work on this article, I'm more than happy to support its promotion. Ian Rose, I know this is why you earn the big bucks, but just a courtesy ping that my concerns have been resolved. Harrias ^talk 16:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Tks guys for working together so quickly and efficiently to resolve these points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just added the required note that I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review. Harrias ^talk 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.