Talk:John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Mac Edmunds (talk · contribs) 17:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 03:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll have a review of this article posted some time this week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Edmunds: I've posted my initial review below. The main issues are that there are some unreliable sources and that the article could use a little tidying and copyediting. I might have some more comments after the changes are made, but this should be most of what's keeping this article from GA right now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General:

The article probably doesn't need this many sections and subsections, especially when they're only a paragraph long. Some of these should be consolidated.
Similarly, 1–2 sentence paragraphs might be consolidated into larger ones where possible.
This isn't relevant to the good article criteria, but I want to quickly mention Template:Inflation, which calculates inflation and keeps it updated automatically.
Images are good. The infobox image is justified with a non-free use rationale, although there's a selection box around it from an image editing program that might be cropped out. All other images are properly licensed.
There are a lot of sentences that use several commas and become difficult to follow. This is my own rule of thumb, but once there are four or so commas in a sentence (besides lists), it might be worth rewriting it or splitting it into two separate sentences.

Lead:

It looks like there are a few sections that aren't meaningfully covered in the lead. It might benefit from another sentence or two covering other aspects of his life, such as his inheritance.
Are there any sources verifying that he was styled the Honourable John Morgan between 1949 and 1954? If so, it should probably be mentioned and sourced in the body.

Ancestors:

It's a little jarring to have this be the first paragraph of the body, before it explains who Morgan is. I suggest moving this to "Early life" and making it the second paragraph. The section could optionally be renamed "Ancestry and early life" or something to that effect if that works better.

Early life:

No issues

Inheritance:

Could we get a quick introduction of who Evan Morgan is as soon as he's first mentioned and why he's relevant to the article's subject before going into detail on his life? I was a little confused at first as to what the article was getting at here.
I wonder if the semicolon list could be rewritten so it flows a little more smoothly.
Note that I reworded the sentence about their fortune so what happened to it is clearer upfront.

Disposal of Morgan estates:

Morgan spent little time there; – semicolons should be followed by an independent clause.
Avoid relative time terms like today.
Part of this is my personal opinion, but I don't like having "controversy" in headings because it carries a strong connotation.

Later life:

Once sentence under "Marriage" is uncited. All information in the body should be cited before an article is nominated at GAN.
The first sentence of "Exile and death" runs on and I'm not sure what it's saying.
Note that I adjusted the "Exile and Death" heading so that it displayed in sentence case.
Was there any sort of successor to the barony or any other effects of its end?

References:

It's unclear what the "sources" section is for. It doesn't look like these are used as sources in the article.
YouTube channels like Little Knowledge Podcast are not considered reliable sources because they are self-published.
Who's Who is considered an unreliable source because it is known for publishing inaccurate information.
It's not clear what exactly A letter addressed to Lord Tredegar from the Tredegar Estate Office is referring to or whether it's publicly available. Either way, primary documents like this aren't ideal as sources and any sort of analysis of them should be avoided in articles.

Reference spot checks:

[8] The London Gazette (1906) – Good.
[17] The London Gazette (1929) – Good.
[26] Carradice (2011) – Good.
[36] Fisher (2011) – Good.
[41] Ruperra Castle, checked all three uses. – The source says £800,000. Otherwise good.

Copyedit

Hi @Thebiguglyalien

In view of your thoughts I have condensed sections, removed sub-headings, and moderated comma use. I have added more information about his inheritance (including context) in the lead. I don't believe the statement "styled the Honourable John Morgan between 1949 and 1954" needs citation - as the son of a Baron in the United Kingdom, John was entitled to use the courtesy pre-nominal "Honourable/The Hon." during his father's tenure of the title.

The Ancestors section has been merged into "Ancestors and early life" as you suggested.

I have removed the semi-colon list in the Inheritance section and added some background information about Evan Morgan and his relevance to John's inheritance and disposal of the Morgan estates.

All issues noted and rectified in Disposal of Morgan Estates. However, I have left the sub-headings in this section as I think it helps determine the different aspects of the estate sale, and makes the section more digestible for the reader.

I have now cited the aforementioned sentence under what was the Marriage section. The Marriage sub-heading has now been removed. I have tried to clarify the initial sentence documenting Morgan's exile to Monte-Carlo.

With regards to your comments about John's successor, the bottom of the article already mentions that the titles became extinct as John had no children, signalling the end of the male Morgan bloodline. No particular effects of its end - John had completely liquidated the family estates, so anything he left was distributed to his wife, godson, and stepchildren.

Erroneous book sources removed as well as "Tredegar Estates Letter" and YouTube reference.

Hope that my copyedit satisfies your requirements. Mac Edmunds (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]