Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange/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 22:02, 29 February 2012.

Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange

 * Nominator(s): Ben   Mac  Dui  16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lonely Wikipedian with GSOH, partial to the odd dram and obsessed with remote Scottish islands, seeks the company of like-minded lady, preferably of aristocratic background. Existing marriage to establishment figure no barrier to friendship. Or, if you prefer: I am nominating this remarkable tale, which has been a GA since 2010 and was kindly peer reviewed by the estimable Ruhrfisch in the same year, in honour of the forthcoming WikiWomen's History Month. Yours etc., the somewhat ring-rusty Ben   Mac  Dui  16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great to see you back (nudge :). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank-you - I wandered off into list-mania and wondered if I would ever get back. I have just finished reading The Hobbit but I'll look at SitHMA asap - hopefully tomorrow. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review and spot check
 * [4] Undiscovered Scotland: doesn't actually say Gladstone's Land was built in 1620.
 * [5] NTS: as above
 * I think the NTS one used to. I've added another from VisitScotland. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NTS moved some information to the "What to see and do" button but it is more equivocal than VisitScotland ("the spectacular painted ceiling dating to 1620") so I have left them both. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd remove Undiscovered Scotland to reduce citation clutter in the image caption, and change "built" to "completed" just to be clear. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [7][8] thepeerage.com is a self-published enthusiast site; the article says Charles Erskine was the 10th Earl and John was the 11th but the website says Charles was 22nd and 5th Earl; the 10th relates to the title Lord Erskine. The ODNB says John was 22nd and 6th. I'm inclined to cut thepeerage.com sources and all mention of the numbering. We don't really need to know the number.
 * I'd be happy to avoid getting lost in this genealogical maze if you think it can be bypassed! Ben   Mac  Dui  20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced one peerage.com with the ODNB, but they don't list his dear papa. "Tribe of Mar" may not be much better than peerage.com but I don't think there is anything controversial here. This link may look more prestigious, but there isn't much to choose between them in my view.  Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've no qualms about Tribe of Mar. I agree on the Stanford site: leave it out. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [9] Bruce does say 11th Earl [& 1st Duke] (and "Bobbing John")
 * [13] archaeologydaily is reprinted from the Times online. I see the "wild beauty" quote, but not much of the other material. The "superficially uneventful domestic life" and her role as factor isn't covered in the Times, so I would move the cite to the first sentence, keeping/using Maclean and Macaulay suitably for that and the rest.
 * Done. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [16][17] thepeerage.com: again you could consider dropping this if the material is covered by [15]
 * It isn't, so I have added corroborating refs of a similar mien. Nothing in ODNB or Keay & Keay (1994). Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I might be able to check in Burke's or the Complete Peerage at some point in the week. I agree there's nothing controversial about the material, but I'd prefer to avoid these sites if possible. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced thepeerage.com. I've kept Cracroft as the author is an Honorary Fellow of the Heraldry Society. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [34] NTS: the article says "believe it [the cleit] was rebuilt on the site of a larger black house where she lived" the source says "traditionally said to be the house where she was held prisoner, but this is unlikely to be true".
 * There are other sources about this I can add. She clearly had a dwelling but I doubt anyone can be certain of its precise location. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a clarificatory note. It is my guess that the NTS mean that it "is unlikely to be true" she lived in the cleit itself. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks great now, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [35] RCAHM: material supported by source
 * [36] NTS: figures match those given at the source
 * [49] MacLeod: Do you want to add location (Edinburgh) and page (24) as with the other books?
 * Done. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [54] artoftheprint: not supporting a contentious point but there are better sources than what could be described as a shop.
 * When you live where I do a shop is something to be treasured. The ODNB has an entry and I have replaced artoftheprint with it. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [57] seoras.com: calls itself a "blog" so may not qualify as a reliable source; I couldn't find Norman MacLeod's naming as an accomplice to the kidnapping at this site. If the material is supported by [56], maybe remove this source?
 * It is the epithet "Wicked Man" that Macauley doesn't use. There are a few refs on the Norman MacLeod article itself I could borrow if I can't find anything better. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The ODNB has an entry about him, but whilst noting that "rather uniquely, no praise-poem for him has come down in the oral tradition of the Isle of Skye" remarkably, they fail to mention the name by which he is best known. Happily the Celtic Magazine obliges and I have used this rather than Seoras/George. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [70] The quote from Scott's edited journal is "became the nearest and most confidential of all his Edinburgh associates." I think it is worth specifying more exactly that these are the words of the editor David Douglas (in footnote 3 on page 40 of the 1891 edition published by Harper of New York) not Scott. I'd format this reference in the same way as the other books.
 * Done. There is no sign that I can see of the quote being Douglas's on the Gutenberg but I have added this to the text. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the version at archive.org: . DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [71][72] It's a little awkward that the date is given by the BBC and the sonnet title by the critic but the sentence is verifiable taking both cites together. Is there a reason to use https:// for the BBC site rather than http://?
 * None and done. Ben  Mac  Dui  20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the external links the two PSAS links are identical. Can you link direct to and ?
 * Done. I didn't originally as I get fed up with the ads moving the source files around. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All the above are now attended to. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Media review
 * File:Lady Grange.jpg, File:Blaeu - Atlas of Scotland 1654 - ÆBUDÆ INSULÆ - The Hebrides.jpg, File:James Erskine.jpg: strictly speaking there should be a United States license tag and source for the electronic file as well. Though this isn't a problem in my view. All other files fine. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the lead image File:Lady Grange.jpg to a higher resolution version and added the source. I have not carefully re-read the article yet, but will comment here once I do. My recollection from the "PR on the talk page" was that this was in very good shape back then. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Super article.
 * Can I suggest taking Note 7 out of the notes and placing it within the text? Otherwise, I'm left thinking "How did she get the letters off?"
 * A good suggestion I will look into asap. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - see below. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What about Lady Grange's sister-in-law Lady Frances Pierrepoint, Lady Mar? Was she also forcibly confined by Lords Mar and Grange on the grounds of insanity? Should/can she be mentioned?
 * I was aware of her alleged insanity - hardly surprising if one is deprived of delights of Scotland that are highlighted so well by Lady Grange's story - but I don't know much about it. She apparently outlived Mar, but there is a hint of suspicion. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the subject at ODNB that I can see. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are the articles linked in the "See also" section linked to Lady Grange by reliable sources?
 * I fear they may not be. I may have missed something in MOS - I read that these links are "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". I am notoriously deficient in the latter and welcome a more active appraisal of their worth - which I confess may have been ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Should the article title be "Rachel Erskine, Lady Grange" or "Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange"?
 * This is a good question, which I wondered about at the time. She is almost always referred to as simply "Lady Grange", which doesn't help. She signs both the letter of separation and the letters from St Kilda "Rachell Erskine" (sic) although the heading to the former calls her "Rachell Chiesly". I don't mind and I am rather unfamiliar with protocols for biographical articles. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have a very marginal preference for Erskine, but I'm not bothered either. I've created redirects instead. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's one cite template used (for Mackenzie). Should cite templates be used throughout, or not at all? DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is a rhetorical question and I apologise for my laziness. Fixed - although the refs/dashes combination looks odd to me. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I'm still cautious over the See alsos; and would like to see note 7 moved, but this is a well-structured, good read complemented by appropriately licensed and positioned images. Sources and style check out. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your detailed attention. Note 7 has been moved, and I have removed Iris Robinson from the see alsos. It is arguably a breach of BLP protocols for her to remain there without there being some sourced connection. I doubt the remaining two will offend. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and a couple of comments from a Sassenach "How different, how very different from the home life of our own dear Queen!" Great job, just two things  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the lead, I'd have "nine" rather than the numeral since it's less than ten
 * I wonder if there is any way of making it clearer that Village is a place name, otherwise someone will query the cap, or "correct" it to lower case?
 * Done and many thanks. I also added an invisible comment re the Village. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I have now carefully read the article again and find it meets the FA criteria. As noted above, I also reviewed this on the talk page and have now found that almost all of my comments there have been addressed. I still think it would help to somehow explain "barracked" - perhaps a wikitionary link to "jeer" (so "For example, she barracked her husband in the street and in church...")? Nicely done (and poor Lady Grange). Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks (again) and done. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Oppose Problem : The prose is compelling, but reading through, I find the following:- "By any standards, Lady Grange's story is a remarkable one and several key questions require explanation. Firstly, what drove James Erskine to these extraordinary lengths? Secondly, why were so many individuals willing to participate in this illegal and dangerous kidnapping of his wife, and thirdly how was she held for so long without rescue?"

This opinion is neither attributed nor cited, and thus reads like the editorial voice loud and clear. Other similar instances:-
 * "The third question is perhaps the easiest to answer"
 * "There is also little doubt that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor."
 * "As for Lady Grange herself, her vituperative outbursts and indulgence in alcohol were clearly important factors in her undoing."

All of these instances, and possibly others, detract from the neutrality of the prose and in my view require rephrasing or direct attribution to eliminate the POV. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my mind there is a clear distinction to be made between an "editorial voice" and a "point of view". The one is simply a device to introduce the text, whilst the latter is clearly a form of bias. I am not aware of any reason why the former cannot be used. Nonetheless, your points are well made and I will attempt to address them.
 * "By any standards… held for so long without rescue?"
 * One of the problems here is that although the Lady Grange affair is referred to in numerous sources, few of them give the subject more than cursory treatment. For example, Johnson treats it as a humorous aside, Maclean devotes a page or two but relies on the Sobieski Stuart's defence of the Highland aristocracy. In the present era only Macauley provides any real detail and there is therefore not much modern analysis to refer to. She addresses each question although I don't recall a passage in which she lists them. It would be quite possible to remove this para in its entirety and just enumerate the various "motivations" without any kind of framing. This would remove the need to address the "The third question is perhaps the easiest to answer" problem you raise - although I wonder if you think perhaps that it isn't? If I may, I have some questions of my own. Firstly, are any of the questions raised not genuinely worthy of discussion? Secondly, would the prose work better without the framing? Finally, Do you think it would it be less "point of view" to keep the questions but make them less direct? - something like:
 * "By any standards, Lady Grange's story is a remarkable one and several questions arise. These include, what was it that drove James Erskine to these extraordinary lengths, why were so many individuals willing to participate in this illegal and dangerous kidnapping of his wife and how was she held for so long without rescue?"
 * I have no issue with the basic material, but we need to get away from the impression that you, individually, are leading and framing the terms of the discussion. Thus, I would expect the paragraph to begin someting like: "Critics have characterised Lady Grange's story as remarkable, and have identified several key questions requiring explanation". After the three questions I would expect to see citations to the critical sources that have raised these questions. Without such attribution, the questions read as the result of your personal analysis, which is OR. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also little doubt that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor." is followed immediately by an example: "Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children."- which is cited. Is the notion in doubt? It has rather been weighing on my conscience that Macauley devotes some thought to the issue of gender that has been rather skipped over - it's easy enough to add a few more bits of information and I'll give this some consideration - although I doubt the modern reader is in any doubt about the importance of the theme.
 * Done. Ben   Mac Dui  11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The notion is not in doubt, but you need to frame it so that it is presented as Macauley's view rather than your own. I don't have access to this source, but something like "In her account of the affair, Margaret Macauley emphasises that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor,  and that although numerous documents..." etc would be fine. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "As for Lady Grange herself, her vituperative outbursts and indulgence in alcohol were clearly important factors in her undoing." Again this is sourced at the end of the following sentence. I will add the same ref to this sentence. Ben   Mac  Dui  10:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Better, but I would still recommend the removal of "remarkably enough", unless the phrase can be specifically attributed. Likewise, "This may become easier to understand..." should be part of the same attribution. I hope I have made myself clear in expounding these issues, which are relatively small in the context of what I think is in general an excellent and star-worthy article. Please ping my talkpage if you are in any further doubt as to my concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We still have the unattributed "By any standards..." and "remarkably enough..." etc, and until these are rephrased to eliminate the editorial voice, I must regretfully oppose. I have indicated how these problems can be resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly done.
 * Macauley does not really list the second "question" as a question in her preface but states that Grange's "mafia of male friends" helped him "find his own unique solution".
 * "18th-century attitudes to women in general" still needs attention but I think the rest are fixed. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now also attempted. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One more, if you would: "The question as to why no successful rescue was ever effected is easy to answer. The Hebrides were very remote from the anglophone world in the early 18th century and no reliable naval charts of the area became available until 1776.[Note 12]" The "easiness" of the question is a passing comment.; I suggest: "The reason why no successful rescue was ever effected lies in the remoteness of the Hebrides from the anglophone world in the early 18th century. No reliable naval charts of the area became available until 1776.[Note 12]". Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: I think what you've done is reasonable. I intended to come back sooner but got distracted; anyway I've struck the oppose and the article looks ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all and many thanks for your detailed attention to the prose. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Nearly there, however I think a little more could be done along the lines Brian suggested earlier. Bit concerned with the use of "clear/clearly" in Motivations -- the wording suggests the average reader won't understand, which seems condescending. I realise you may be employing it to add a bit of zest to the writing, but it's also repetitive and we could surely lose a couple of instances, e.g. if "It is also clear that he was a philanderer and over-partial to claret" is a fact, why not just say "He was a philanderer and over-partial to claret"? Not sure we really need it in "it is clear that John Chiesley's daughter did not command a sympathetic audience in her home town" either. "Her position was clearly difficult. Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children." might be reworded to "Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children, making her position extremely difficult." to retain the emphasis but mix up the wording a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have attended to these three specific instances - "clearly" still appears once in the section. Happy to look at others if need be. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that all works, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


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