# Talk:Sir William James, 1st Baronet

When I was a pupil at Eltham Church of England School, we were provided with hot cross buns on the anniversary of the Battle of Severndroog - does this still happen ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.242.231 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sir William James, 1st Baronet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Good day User:Dabberoni15, if I may call you so. I propose to review your GA nomination “Sir William James, 1st Baronet”. Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer, whereas you are have already 9 GAs. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me when you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion. Should I lack in respect, complain (see WP:CIVIL). You can have me banned.
I start a first traverse.


### Before the article content
Optional Infobox, parameter |birth_date= - According to the documentation the {{Birth date}} (see TEMPLATE:BIRTH DATE) should not be used with non-Gregorian dates. England and Wales changed in 1752. His birth date (1721) therefore is given in the Julian calendar.
I've removed the parameters, what do you think now?
Fine
Optional Infobox, parameter |commands= - What does HCS stand for?
It is a ship prefix which stands for "Honourable Company Ship". This was the prefix used by Bombay Marine ships, as they were part of the Honourable East India Company. The concept is similar to Her Majesty's Ship being used for Royal Navy ships.
Optional Infobox, parameter |battles= - What does Gheria refer to as the linked article does not mention the name?
You're right, I have misspelled it as "Gheria" instead of "Gheriah". My mistake, but I have corrected this now. Vijaydurg is the settlement's Indian name, but I have written it as "Gheriah" in line with what my source names it as, which is what the British called it. Dabberoni15 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


### Lead
MOS:LEAD SECTION MOS:LEADLENGTH - The lead seems too long. It comprises 4 paragraphs. GACR Rule 1b prescribes compliance with MOS:LEAD SECTION of which MOS:LEADLENGTH is a part. This latter rule prescribes in terms of numeric length it states that an article with less than 15000 characters (your case) should consist of 1 or 2 paragraphs. Therefore, shorten or reorganise your lead in 2 paragraphs.
—With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade, thank you for reviewing this article (and yes, you can call me Dabberoni15, though I will admit it is a rather silly username!). In regards to your linguistic concerns, English is my native language- so don't worry, if there are any language issues I will do my best to resolve them for you. I'll go over your points now. Dabberoni15 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
In regard to the length of the lede section, I'm afraid I must disagree with your suggestion. As I'm sure you're aware, the MOS:LEADLENGTH guideline was intended to be a suggestion as opposed to an absolute rule; in all my previous GA articles concerning individuals, I've chosen to write a lede consisting of four paragraphs (which have not raised comment) so I would argue that a majority of the WP community considers this acceptable. Again, I'm really sorry to have to dispute your point, but I feel very strongly on this (that four small paragraphs are an acceptable length for an article of this size). Perhaps we could ask another GA reviewer for input? Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I reread MOS:LEADLENGTH and realised how catiously it is formulated. You are right it is not a requirement but rather recommendation.


### Early life
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Historians have noted that information about his parents is extremely scarce; – GACR Rule 1a, "concise"; "Information about his parents is extremely scarce;" would be entirely sufficient to communicate the fact. The "Historians have noted the" is too much. Quite obviously, all our information must come from a source, quite often a historian. Their names will appear in the corresponding citation, normally not in the text, except when there are special circumstances like there is a doubt, a contradiction, or the source is known to be biased. Not our case here.
Done
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Nathaniel Wraxall wrote that ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; Shortly introduce Wraxall to the reader, possibly as a colleague at the East India Comany (I am not so sure whether this is true).
Done
Optional 1st paragraph, last sentence, citation: {{sfn|Bowyer|2004}} - I wonder why you cite the ODBC article on James from the online version rather than from the book. Like probably most readers, I cannot access the online version. The entry for the ODBC article in the source list says "subscription or UK public library required". This is quite restrictive, but the truth is worse. I live in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, and am a member of the local public library, but I cannot get access. At the library they told me that "Libraries NI" (NI=Northern Ireland) do not subscribe to the ODNB. I can however, like anybody, register at Internet Archive and read the ODNB there at https://archive.org/details/isbn_0198613792/page/746/. So why make things more difficult for the reader? However, you are not the only one. I have seen others who prefer to cite the online version. I do not understand why.
The online version is easier to cite than the book, and ultimately you are allowed to cite the OBDN using the "{{Cite ODNB|" reflink. If it's fine with you, I'll stick with the online version.
—With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: On April 1755 ... - GACR Rule 1a, "grammarg"; This should be "In April 1755 ..."
Done
last paragraph, 1st sentence: Hooghly River ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; I do not think you can expect the reader to know that river, or rather arm of the Ganges at its delta. The importance was that the French possession of Chandernagor was on this river just upstream of Kolkata.
Rewritten
last paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... traversing the Bay of Bengal ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; To go from Bombay to the Hooghly River along the shortest route one would go around the southern point of India and up the East (Bengal) coast, not traverse (go across) the Bay of Bengal.
I think we may have a misunderstanding here. In order for James to deliver a message from Bombay to a British fleet in the Hooghly River, he would have to sail down southwards and then up along the eastern Indian coast in order to reach Bengal. This is (to the best of my knowledge) accurately stated in the article. However, as the seasonal Northeast monsoon made travelling through the the Bay of Bengal difficult, he took a detour by sailing eastwards towards the island of Sumatra once he passed the southern tip of India and then going north from there. I have explicitly made it clear that James was in Bombay at the journey's beginning.
—Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
James's baronetcy is also described by Cokayne (1906) at https://archive.org/details/completebaroneta05coka/page/199/. Cokayne says his son was born about 1774 and died aged 18. I wondered whether it would not be better to move most of the facts (e.g. mariages, births of children) from the section "Personal life, family and legacy" to the places where they belong according to their chronological position in his life, and reduce that last section only to his death and legacy.

Again, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but I think that would be a bad idea. There's already a source in the article for James' son, and I think any further information on him would be better suited for his own article, as opposed to this one. In my view, putting most of the last section into the first three sections would render the last section too small and the other three too large, and thus (in my opinion) negatively impacting its structure, flow and coherency. I have added your source into the article along with his son's date of birth.
—Dear Dabberoni15, I have to ask you for some patience. I will be away from the 27 to the 30 of June. I will then continue the review. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Dabberoni15 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Dabberoni15, don't apologise. I just wnated to try It looked like an optional improvement in my eyes. It is quite obvious from the Good Articl criteria (GACR), especially rule 1b and its footnote, that MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL cannot be enforced at the level of GA. This will therefore have to be rediscussed when you go for FA.
Congratulations. This conforms with the GA criteria. I will promote this now to GA.