Talk:Ayscoghe Boucherett/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• "who married, when widowed, the art connoisseur John Julius Angerstein. This union helped the younger Boucherett to garner connexions in London merchant circles." This seems like a non-sequitur. Perhaps "insurance broker and art connoisseur2
  • Done.
• "especially in the north of the County, where the family had their seats;" Why seats? I think you only mention one seat.
  • Done.
• "when he did vote, he tended to do so with Charles James Fox, rather than William Pitt the Younger" It seems remarkable that such an establishment figure voted with the radical opposition of the 1790s. Is anything more known of this? There is some further information in Stokes.
  • Lord Yarborough, Boucherett's sponsor, was an opponent of Pitt's (owing to Pitt's refusal to elevate him to the peerage) and, as such; Yarborough supported the opposition in the 1790s, and was a friend of the Duke of Portland. (see [1]) I have added Yarborough's views to the article - does this seem like a valid interpretation to you?
• "He found, though, that his funds and the financial success of the company were both in decline and, in 1803, resigned in favour of Lord Yarborough's eldest son and heir, the Hon. Charles Anderson Pelham, later 1st Earl and 2nd Baron Yarborough." This seems to imply that his difficulties and his resignation were connected, which is not implied by the source.
  • Done; I have kept the information about his failing funds in, because Stokes does seem to subtly imply a link, but, as you point out, his resignation was in favour of Yarborough's heir, and I have amended the article to reflect that.
    • The lead also needs amendment for this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Done.
• This article should pass. There is some further information worth giving in Stokes, particularly that his assets barely covered his debts when he died.
  • Done

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the review, please see my comments above. --Noswall59 (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

• Did you make the amendment shown as by an anonymous editor at 17:31? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes I did - my account auto-logged out while making the revision. I have also amended the lead. Thanks again, --Noswall59 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

Fine. I will pass it now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)