# Talk:Hugh Mason

In addition to the ones I've already added to the article, the search results also included the details fo patents awarded to him - I don't know if these are worth mentioning? David Underdown (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the patents are probably worth including. Thanks for the additions, I'm going to have to stick the London Gazette on my list of sources to check when writing an article. Nev1 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Mason/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Generally quite good - just needs some massaging of the prose and a couple of other fixes before it's a GA. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


### Is it well-written?
Mostly.  A few issues:

Per WP:LEAD, the lead for an article this size should probably be a couple of paragraphs.  Besides that guideline, the current lead has some awkward/absent transitions.  I'd suggest splitting it into a couple of paragraphs with a little more detail each, one on his activities as a mill worker and one on his political activities. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree and have implemented the changes as you suggested. Nev1 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Rad. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about the organization of the article, specifically with the "politics" section being hived off from the biography.  Absent any reason not to, I think biographical articles should be organized roughly chronologically, and dealing with his political career after his death is kind of odd.  Off the top of my head, what about dividing it into "Early life and business career", "Political career", "Personal life" (which would include his marriages, death, etc.)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree the layout leaves something to be desired. Part of the problem is that his period activity in politics and business overlaps slightly so is hard to deal with chronologically without bouncing back and forth. I've rearranged it a bit so see what you think. Nev1 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's much better now, I think.  And yeah, I realize that perfect chronological order's usually impossible, but my rule of thumb is that biographical articles should begin with the birth and end with the death (well, depending on the article, a "legacy" section is sometimes appropriate after - but that's chronological too, since dead people's legacy is usually most acutely felt after they die).  Anyway, good now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead could do with some more wikilinks - there are some terms - "Stalybridge", "Lancashire Cotton Famine", etc. - that are linked later in the article.  My personal preference would be to see them linked in both places, though this is personal preference that isn't sanctioned by WP:MOSLINK.  In any event, do something about it or don't, as you see fit; I'm not going to hold the GA up over it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done (I've left the ones in the body of the text, I think they're just as relevent there). Nev1 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...until he entered the family business..." I assume the family business was cotton milling, but this could do with some clarification, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Added in "cotton", should be enough. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Mason became the first Liberal politician to be elected councillor for Ashton-under-Lyne in 1856." The word politician is unnecessary; were any Liberal non-politicians elected councillor? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point, fixed. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically good, though I'm wondering about the choice of wording.  "First elected Liberal councillor" makes it sound as though there were other, unelected, Liberal councillor before him, which is possible.  If that's not the case, though, I'd suggest "first Liberal elected councillor" or similar. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It was just my prose at fault here, so I've changed it as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...due to coming into conflict with his own party" I'd eliminated "coming into", as it doesn't add any clarity or elegance to the sentence.
Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"He was voted in and as a politician..." Again, I don't think it's necessary to state that he's a politician.  I'd either say "...and as MP supported..." or (my preference) "...and supported..."
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The second, third, and fourth sentences of the lead's second paragraph all include the word "party".  I'd eliminate one or two of those, because it otherwise seems quite repetitive. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This one's difficult to fix, I can't think of any sysnonyms for party (one of the occurances is as a proper noun). Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How about something like the following? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
He was mayor of the council from 1857 to 1860. In 1874 he retired from local politics due to conflict with his own party, but it was again as a Liberal that he re-entered politics in 1878. That year, he stood for election as Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne. He was voted in and supported progressive policies, which included women's suffrage, making him unpopular among his fellow Liberals.
Unfortunately, that would mean that "Liberal" is used three times in the same paragraph. I think the solution was easier than I was making it; [1] I removed one "party", and I think now the two occurances of "party" are far apart enough for it to scan well. Nev1 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"He was the youngest of four children of Thomas Mason and Mary Mason. Thomas Mason was a former textile manager."  I'm usually a fan of breaking up long sentences into shorter ones, but in this case I'd actually suggest the opposite ("...four children of Thomas Mason, a former textile manager, and Mary Mason...").  The status quo I feel takes the attention off Hugh and places it on his father. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"The family had moved to Stalybridge in 1776 after moving from Derbyshire."  Did the family move from Derbyshire to Stalybridge?  If so, how about "...had moved to Stalybridge from Derbyshire in 1776"?  I find the current wording ambiguous, since "after" suggests that there were two moves taking place (the first from Derbyshire, the second to Stalybridge), which I gather probably isn't the case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"After working as the manager of a mill in Ashton-under-Lyne, Thomas established his own business in 1815 in partnership with James Booth and Edward Hulton at Currier Slacks Mill in Ashton-under-Lyne."  I think it would be better to avoid mentioning the name of the town twice in the same sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point, changed as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"He worked in the bank before leaving in 1838 at the age of 21 to join the family's cotton business."  Seems a little unwieldy - how about "He worked there until 1838, when he left at the age of 21 to join the family's cotton business" or something similar? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Hugh Mason became the driving force behind the business."  I think it would be better to replace "Hugh Mason" with "He", given that the previous two sentences were exclusively about him.  As well, some temporal context here would be nice; did he become the driving force immediately?  This is 1838, and by the next sentence we're already on to the early fifties, so it's hard to tell if, at age 21, he became the driving force owing to his business acumen and force of will, or if he spent the next decade under the careful tutelage of his father until he was ready to take over upon his father's retirement. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changes to prose made as suggested, but I don't think I'll be able to added the time frame, which is a shame, as the sources I'm using don't specify it. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh well.  I know how frustrating source limitations can be. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...the Ryecroft area of Ashton under Lyne..." Ashton under Lyne is hyphenated elsewhere.  Is there a reason it's not here? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a reason, but it's just because sometimes I can't type. It's been corrected, should always be hyphenated. Nev1 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...Hugh began construction..." Per WP:MOSBIO, "it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant."  In the previous paragraph, I think it made sense to refer to Hugh and Thomas by their first names in order to distinguish them from one another, but by this time I don't think that ambiguity is any longer a concern.  This is also an issue at several later points in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed a lot of instances of the informal "Hugh", but have left it where his brothers and father are mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Generally good, but I think "Hugh began construction..." should still be converted, as no other family members are mentioned in that paragraph. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"Mason built up what he saw it as..." The word "it" shouldn't be there, should it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed "it". Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Residents were expected to adhere to his strict moral code and Mason discouraged the use of public houses."  I'd replace "Mason" with "his", since I don't think the reader yet needs to be reminder who were talking about.  If you want to include the name for the sake of variety, I'd suggest rewording it to "...Mason's strict moral code and he discouraged..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced his name with "his". Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Some of these houses still survive..."  Given the location of this sentence, it looks very much as though "these houses" refers to "public houses", when in fact I gather it refers to the terrace houses mentioned earlier.  Besides that, this sentence seems out of place, in that it's moving us for one sentence from the 1850s to the present day, before moving us back again.  In light of that and in light of the fact that this article's not about the colony, but about Mason's life, I think it would be better dealt with as a parenthetical device (perhaps moved to right after the mention of terrace houses) or a footnote. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the footnote suggestion, so that's what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...including "The Twelve Apostles" in Trafalgar Square, Hamilton Street, Gibson Terrace (Oxford Street)"  I find having the entire address bulky and unhelpful, especially if the sentence is to be left as part of the body text. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
They were actually separate roads rather than a full address, so I made this edit which should hopefully make things clearer. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"He estimated that establishing the settlement cost him around £10,000 and would require a further £1,000 a year to maintain" There's a shifting tense here: the first part of the sentence sounds as though he's looking back after the fact and estimating how much it cost him, while the second looks like he's making the estimate in advance of undertaking the project. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made this edit, which fixes the tenses. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good, though now that I reread it, I think "per year" would be better than "a year", which is pretty colloquial. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and changed. Nev1 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"The number of spindles in use at the mills..."  I think this might run afoul of WP:JARGON, since I'm not sure the typical reader would know what spindles are in the context of a cotton mill.  If it can't be reworded to make it clearer to the layman, is there a wikilink that might help? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added a wikilink. I wasnted to add an explanation, but I couldn't manage a concise one unfortunately. It's frustrating as I've had this problem in another article. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that wikilinking's a better solution than explaining anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"His two brothers also worked in the company until Henry and Booth retired..."  I'm a little confused by this - I presume that Henry and Booth were his brothers (although this assumption is challenged by the fact that one of his father's business partners was named Booth).  If this is the case, how about "His two brothers, Henry and Booth, also worked in the company until they retired in 1848 and 1853, respectively"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"He stated that:"  This isn't an independent clause, and therefore either the colon should go or the word "that" should.  As well, the footnote should probably be moved to the end of the quote, rather than the beginning. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"The poor rate is only 1s 6d in the pound..."  I appreciate that this is a direct quote, but would it be possible, for the benefit of those of us not acquainted with the history of the British currency system, to wikilink those units? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"The Manchester Guardian noted that:"  Same issues here as with the previous quote. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"They had one child: Arnold in 1851."  While "They had one child" is an independent clause, making the use of the colon legitimate, it's illegitimated by the fact that "in 1851" modifies "They had one child" rather than "Arnold".  What you're actually doing here is using "Arnold" as a parenthetical device, which I think would be best achieved by surrounding it commas, like so: "They had one child, Arnold, in 1851."  Same issue next sentence when he married Betsy, and a similar one when it lists their four children (though that one would be better solved with something like "...four children: Bertha, born in 1855, Edith in 1857, Rupert in 1859 and Sydney in 1861"). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...though it was illegal to marry your sister in law..." I find the use of "your" here to be a little too colloquial.  "One's" would be better, I think, unless you find it too stuffy.  Besides that, I think "sister in law" should be hyphenated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Their marriage was by special licence from the King of Denmark held at the Evangellic Reform Church" As currently worded, it appears that the licence was held at the church.  I'd suggest rewording to something like "...was by special licence from the King of Denmark and was held at..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Hugh Mason was influenced by his father's politics who was a Liberal..." Misplaced modifier.  I'd fix it with either "...influenced by the politics of his father, who was a Liberal..." or (better yet) "...influenced by his father's Liberal politics..." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...three consecutive years between 1857 and 1860, something which had never happened before."  Either "which" should be changed to "that", or "something" should be eliminated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"...the opening of a public park, the provision of public libraries, and addressing unsanitary conditions..." Faulty parallelism.  I'd reword to "opening a public park, providing public libraries, and addressing unsanitary conditions" or "the opening of a public park, the provision of public libraries, and the addressing of unsanitary conditions".  I far prefer the first, but either is acceptable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Done (although I left in the bit about parts of Ashton-under-Lyne at the end). Nev1 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually intended that that should be left - I just forgot the ellipses.  Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Conflict with his own party drove Mason into early retirement from local politics in 1874 at the age of 57."  This is the second consecutive sentence to use "his own party", and also the second consecutive sentence to refer to the subject by name rather than by pronoun. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed. Nev1 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"During his time in office he had to deal with the bread riots in of 21–22 March 1863 caused by the cotton famine and the Murphy Riots in May 1868."  This is currently incoherent, as it suggests that the Murphy Riots and the cotton famine both caused the bread riots, which couldn't be the case.  I assume what you mean is that he had to deal with both the bread riots (caused by the cotton famine) and the Murphy Riots. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed, I'm not a fan of brackets but it seemed the best way to handle that sentence. Nev1 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Although he was a popular candidate..."  This is the second consecutive sentence to begin with "Although". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed. Nev1 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"However, he stood for the 1880 General Elections."  Didn't he stand for Parliament in the 1880 elections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have changed this for now, but I'll admit this kind of terminology does confuse me. Standing for Parliament sounds like he was representing Parliament before he was elected, but I thought standing for election sounded more like he was a candidate. Nev1 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe your confusion may stem from two different uses of the word "election".  One is a definite noun, as in "the 1880 election" or "there will be an election".  The other is the noun derived from the verb "to elect", as in "I will seek election".  This sentence helps illustrate things, I think: "He stood for election in the 1880 election." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That helps, thanks for taking time to explain it. Nev1 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The last three sentences of "National" use Mason's name three times. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed. Nev1 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Under "External links", there appears "Records held at Ashton Library Local History section, Old Street, Ashton-under-Lyne.", but there isn't actually an external link there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed. Nev1 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The infobox only mentions one of his three wives.  I'm also not sure the use of the "Majority" field is advisable, but that might just be me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The other wives have noe been listed. The majority field is used in other articles about politicians; I can't find a Good or Featured example, but the Tony Blair article (B-class) uses it. If you think it's a problem it could be removed, but the only difficulty I could forsee is people not knowing what a majority is (I was a bit hazy on the details myself). Nev1 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the majority thing might be personal preference (though in Blair's case it seems doubly dumb to me - which of the numerous elections that he won are they talking about?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good point, probably something that should be taken up with the appropriate wikiproject. Nev1 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
New issue that I failed to notice last time: "Mason demanded a recount, however this increased the majority by one vote;".  The word "however" isn't a conjunction.  The easiest fix here would be to change it to "but".  Failing that, you could put a semicolon after "recount", but then you'd need to deal with semicolon that's already there. 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


### Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
It's sometimes a little tricky to tell what material is supported by which footnotes, owing partly to the presence of footnotes in mid-sentence (which is acceptable per WP:FOOTNOTE).  For example, does footnote 1 only support his date of birth, or his date and place of birth?  And what about the location of his christening - if footnote 1 supports that, it should probably be moved to the end of the sentence.  If it doesn't, what does?  In any event, there are a few instances like this over the course of the article; my preferred solution is to move footnotes to the end of sentences (or, at least, to have footnotes at the end of each sentence), but other solutions are certainly possible.  Other than that, it looks good - the references all appear to be reliable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


### Is it broad in its coverage?
Generally yes - I wasn't left with any major unanswered questions in reading this article.  A few niggling little issues:

"The Manchester Cotton Company was set up in 1860..." It's not at all clear what this company is or why it's relevant to Mason's life.  Was he involved in setting it up (if so, change the passive voice to active)?  Was it an unrelated company that he just happened to become chair of? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added a little on the purpose of the company, hopefully it's now clear that Mason had business interests in the company. Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"Thomas Mason was a supporter of political representation for Ashton-under-Lyne..." This sort of jumps out at me as something that could use some elaboration; why didn't Ashton-under-Lyne have political representation? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added a bit of background here, the whole of Lancashire was woefully under-represented in parliament in the early 19th century (see Peterloo Massacre for further details). Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"During his time in office he had to deal with the bread riots in of 21–22 March 1863 caused by the cotton famine and the Murphy Riots in May 1868."  What were the Murphy Riots? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The Murphy Riots have now been explained. Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"Mason, along with a group of other Liberals, was one of the founding members of the Manchester Reform Club."  This club should be either explained a little bit or wikilinked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
A little has been added about the club, at some point IO should probably get round to turning the red link blue... Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"...his support of William Gladstone over Ireland..." What about Ireland?  Is there an issue that could be explained ("...over Irish home rule...") or wikilinked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It was home rule, this has been clarified in the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Great work - this section, and the article as a whole, is a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


### Is it neutral?
This is tough - the biography is fairly glowing but, to paraphrase a truism, "history is never NPOV".  By this I mean that the article is very pro-Mason, but he's a distant enough and minor enough figure that I have no trouble believing that this POV is the one that is reflected in all available sources, in which case it meets Wikipedia's standards of neutrality: in Mason's case, it's possible that the good he did lives on, while the evil was buried with him.  However, I'm made slightly nervous by the fact that the article's major source appears to be a local history published by the municipality; while I'd characterize that as a reliable source, in my experience they also tend to engage in some amount of boosterism.  I've made a quick web search, and what coverage of him there seems to be online strikes the same tone as the article, so it does seem likely that all is well.  Point of this: I'm passing this as NPOV, but if somebody with a better knowledge of this subject could really scour the available sources to make sure this positive picture reflects academic consensus, I'd very much appreciate it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The main source used in the article, although published by the local borough, was co-published by the University of Manchester and written by an academic there so should be neutral. Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
That alleviates my concern substantially; thank you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


### Is it stable?
Yes - though there have been a flurry of edits in the past week, these all appear to be copy-editing and minor additions.  There is certainly no evidence of live controversies or edit-warring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


### Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
Yes.  The single image is an appropriate choice, and appears to be in the public domain (I'm assuming here that the photograph was made available to the public prior to 1938, which seems extremely likely). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)