This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Very interesting article, but not encyclopedic[edit]
Hello, I was browsing trials at the House of Lords and came across this. I'm almost afraid to change anything because it makes a good read. The trouble is there are many contentious articles where the agreed version is hammered out by sticking to rules of NPOV etc. Now, there's not going to be as many people looking at this as at 'Jihad' or 'Tony Blair' for example, but I'm afraid it still has to follow the rules. Here are some unnacceptable things:
"Had he continued in this vein, it is doubtless that he would have continued the line of the family and been as successful as so many of his forbearers had been" - now it's possible that may be ok if you can find a published source saying this, but as it stands: pure speculation.
"protracted and willful absence" - just protracted would do.
"It is probable that he would, under any circumstances, have taken the field in behalf of the representative of the ancient Scottish sovereigns" - speculation again
"the outrageous treatment which he received from a body of the Lothian militia" - opinion
"The English portion of the insurgent forces, however, persisted in carrying out their absurd scheme" - opinion
"He stood for a time pensive and silent" - starting to read like a historical novel!
"characteristic of his romantic and somewhat extravagant character" - ditto
"The earl got safe to France, and ultimately made his way to Rome, where all misfortune finds a balm". - irrelevant info/opinion about Rome
"The last time we hear of him, brings back to our minds with pathetic interest in the love of these Scottish exiles for their native land and how they would foregather in poverty and distress, keeping up brave hearts, to talk over old times and sing the songs of other days" - how about just "the last accounts of him" followed by a source?
"I have heard two traditions which converge substantially to the same conclusion" - pretty sure you can't use "I" in Wikipedia.
"some writers have said empathetically that he died a Protestant, as if they knew anything about it" - that's quite funny, but I'm afraid it can't stay!
That's about it. You've put a bit of work into this, so I'll wait to see if you'd like to make the changes yourself. Cheers! Jabberwock359 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
