Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregor MacGregor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gregor MacGregor[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


.

Somewhere between the Harry Flashman, Tailor of Panama and Talented Mr Ripley of fiction there is the real General Gregor MacGregor, scion of the colourful Clan Gregor that produced Rob Roy. General MacGregor returned to Britain a hero in 1821—having served with the "Die-Hards" of the 57th Foot during the Peninsular War, he had then rendered distinguished service to the republican revolutionary cause in Venezuela and New Granada against the Crown of Spain. On top of it all he had married a beautiful cousin of the great Simón Bolívar, and become "Cazique" of a young colony in Central America, which he now declared open to investment and immigration—the immensely fertile and mineral-rich sunshine land of Poyais.

Except not really. MacGregor's military exploits did include some genuinely commendable feats, but he omitted embarrassing episodes where he had abandoned his troops, and Poyais was a fantasy calculated to defraud investors and would-be colonists. MacGregor persuaded hundreds of men, women and children, mostly his fellow Scots, to emigrate to his invented country. Coming on board to see them off, he exchanged their British pounds for worthless pieces of paper he told them were Poyaisian dollars, and announced to rousing cheers that he would let the women and children sail for free. The unfortunate colonists arrived at the specified location to find not a thriving colony but an untouched jungle. Most would die from tropical diseases; fewer than 50 would see Britain again.

MacGregor was convincing enough that even some of his victims, including a man who had lost two children in "Poyais", vehemently insisted that he was not to blame. Indeed, MacGregor was never tried for fraud in Britain, and was acquitted and vindicated when tried in France. He remained admired enough in South America that when he returned there in 1838 the Venezuelans happily had him back as a hero, let him retire on a general's pension and ultimately laid on a state funeral attended by the President. MacGregor, the "founding father of securities fraud" to quote one modern analyst, may not match the modern Madoffs and Stanfords in raw cash terms, but in terms of sheer audacity his Poyais scheme—entailing, as it did, the invention of an entire country—will probably never be matched. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the GA reviewer, Maile66, gave a thorough source review at the GAN stage, including spot-checks and checks for close paraphrasing. Props to him for that! —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Leaving the lead till last, as I usually do, here is my first batch of thoughts, covering the text to the end of "Florida republic; Amelia Island affair":

  • Early life
    • [What a pleasing surprise to read that Rob Roy was a real person. I vaguely (showing my ignorance) assumed he was a product of Walter Scott's fertile imagination.]
    • Ages: digits or words? We have "five-and-a-half" in one para and "16" in the next. I like words, but to each his own as long as it's consistent.
      • The style we use at my day job (I now write for a newspaper) is words up to and including nine, then numerals from 10 up. Our manual of style at MOS:NUMERAL says words from one to nine, then either is fine from 10 up. So I think I'll leave it, at least for now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Army
    • Second para: it's a long time till we get to the first reference. Does ref 12 cover everything before it in the para?
      • Yes. I've added another ref after we list Maria's powerful relatives. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "forbade any enlisted man or non-commissioned officer from leaving" – does one forbid from? I think I write "forbid to", but am quite prepared to back down if I meet resistance. (I haven't got the Queen's Award for Cowardice for nothing.)
      • No no, you're quite right, this was a mistake on my part. Changed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venezuela, under Miranda
    • It may just be the resolutely fourth-form mind that lurks within the sexagenarian, but the heading conjured up an inappropriately lurid picture. I might make "under Miranda" "under Miranda's command".
      • We evidently have something in common, Tim. I'm reminded of an occasion in a Russian-language class at school when we were told to translate the sentence "the mother and her daughter went to bed"; when I couldn't stop sniggering, the teacher reproached me for having "a sewer of a mind". —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second para – "the rank of colonel" – a bit late for the hyperlink, after having used the word unlinked earlier?
    • "Doña Josefa" – I don't think the italics are right: isn't it like italicising "Herr" or "Signor"?
  • New Granada; defence of Cartagena
    • "destroyed hamlets, local infrastructure and produce so the Spanish could not use them" – I suspect it is risibly old-fashioned of me, but I cannot regard "so" as a conjunction, though many reputable grammarians take a contrary view. For my taste this would read better as "…produce so that the Spanish…", which isn't a conjunction either, but what the hell. Ignore this if you think it too superannuated.
      • I've changed to "to prevent the Spanish from using them". —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All of the gunboats escaped" – I think of this as an American construction, with the unnecessary "of".
  • Venezuela, under Bolívar
    • On second thoughts, cancel my earlier remarks about headings.
      • I'm sorry Bolivar doesn't conjure up the same images that Miranda does. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Santo Domingo (now the Dominican Republic)" – the "now" is ambiguous: it could mean in 1816 or 2015.
    • "Two pursuant royalist armies" – the OED says that the literal use of "pursuant" to mean "pursuing" is now rare. I'd be inclined to go for "pursuing" here.
    • "giving MacGregor two days' head start, and caught up with MacGregor" – perhaps just "him" for the second MacGregor here?
  • Florida republic; Amelia Island affair
    • "then later not at all" – not sure about this, but is there a touch of tautology in "then later" that there wouldn't be in "and later"?
      • Yes, I had thought along these lines before, I think you're right. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He waited off-shore" – the OED doesn't hyphenate this word.
    • "a few days, then left on the schooner" – I don't regard "then" as a conjunction either, but I dare say I am hopelessly out of touch.
      • I don't personally see an issue with saying "I did X, then Y", but I'm happy to reconsider if others take issue here too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here endeth the first batch. I'm enjoying this chancer enormously. More soonest. – Tim riley talk 13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch
  • Porto Bello
    • "Rafter's version of events…" – not doubting this at all, but curious to know how we know his version, if poor Rafter was captured and died in captivity.
      • I had pondered this myself. I don't have the book to hand right now (I'm writing this from outside the house). I could only presume he managed to write something down before being shot, or perhaps someone else who survived later relayed "his" version of events. I'll have another look in the book later on when I get home. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, quite incorrect—I must have misread it. The source says "In fact, it appears to have been Rafter who sent a messenger to MacGregor ..." etc, without saying whose version of events this is. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Peer review is a splendid safety net, as we have all had reason to know and be grateful for in just such circs. Tim riley talk 14:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cazique of Poyais
    • "So began the Poyais scheme, what has been called one of the most brazen confidence tricks in history" – the "what" would work if the sentence were the other way about (So began what has been called one of the most brazen confidence tricks in history, the Poyais scheme) but this way round it seems to me to need "which" rather than "what".
      • I've followed your suggestion and turned the sentence around. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Land of opportunity
    • "The general consensus is…" – fifty years roll away and a schoolboy is being ticked off by an English master for writing "the general consensus" – "It's tautology, Riley!" (Not to mention that there's another "general" in the next sentence.)
  • Land of opportunity
    • The Manual of Style doesn't like the % symbol in prose, and would have us write "per cent" if English and "percent" if American. I usually see this as good advice, but here the % signs look natural to my eye, and I might be inclined to ignore the MoS. I mention the point and leave it to you.
      • I think here it's okay, as it's mostly for financial figures and such. But I take the point and will happily review if others think it a major issue. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eager settlers
    • "entrusting to Mr Mauger" – do we want the "Mr" here?
    • "would sail for free" – either "for nothing" or "free of charge", but not that linguistic abomination "for free", I beseech you.
  • Disappointment
    • "Weather conditions in British Honduras" – aren't "weather conditions" simply the weather, in plain English?
  • Poyais scheme in France
    • "aspired towards prominence" – does "aspired towards" rather than just "aspired to" strike a wholly idiomatic note? Not sure
      • I think "aspired to" is fine and have made the change. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I was completely absorbed by this disgraceful tale, which you tell in masterly fashion. Superb stuff. You'll ping me when FAC looms, of course. – Tim riley talk 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all this Tim; I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I will certainly let you know at FAC time. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Excellently done. Just a few things ...
Lede
  • "associates—acquitted" I think you should break the sentence here. It goes too far afield.
  • You use "latterly" twice in the lede which I think once too many.
  • OK, changed the second one to "sometimes". —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuela
  • "but the republican leaders were still pleased with the glamour they perceived this dashing Scottish officer to lend to their cause" There's a problem at "to lend". Lent?
  • Perhaps "the republican leaders were still pleased with the glamour they perceived this dashing Scottish officer to give their cause"? —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Florida
  • "medallions". There's at least an implication they were struck in the Bahamas. this argues otherwise]. I don't think the Bahamas has ever had a mint. I notice they're bronze. Cheapskate.
  • The source strongly implies it was there—they were at least based there at the time. "On 8 September, as the first Spanish troops landed on the island, the ship sailed for the Bahamas, arriving at Nassau two weeks later. There, on 9 November 1817, Josefa MacGregor gave birth to a son, who was named Gregorio, while her husband busied himself with the production of a commemorative medallion bearing a representation of the flag of the Floridas and inscriptions reading: 'Amalia Veni Vidi Vici', and 'Duce Mac Gregorio Libertas Floridarium'." He could have done this somewhere else, by correspondence. In any case because of the ambiguity I've rephrased to "where MacGregor arranged the striking of commemorative medallions bearing the Green Cross motif and the Latin inscriptions Amalia Veni Vidi Vici" (rather than "had commemorative medallions struck"). —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enjoined" On the other hand this word seems too expensive. persuaded?
Porto Bello
  • I take it the reason the men were enthused about the march on PB was the opportunity to loot?
  • Sinclair does not say. It is possible, but since his book also says he raised morale by having them all ceremonially swear an oath of allegiance to New Granada, it is not impossible that at least some of them genuinely wanted to help the republican armies. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poyais
  • Probably you'll want metric equivalents.
  • Did he get into the coronation or did he hang out with Caroline outside?
  • It doesn't seem that he even attempted to actually go. I have found no source that makes that claim. It seems that it was just part of his patter regarding why he was in London and why now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "offered rates as low as 3% per annum on the London Stock Exchange. It was fashionable to instead buy more lucrative equivalents issued in London for overseas governments." I think this could be more directly stated along the lines that interest rates had dropped so low investing in consols brought a return of only 3%, and people wanting a higher return invested in riskier foreign debt.
  • I've tried to rephrase this, but I'm not much an expert on these things, so perhaps it might be best if you review again? —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2s/3d" You might want to have a brief textual footnote expressing this amount in words. Does there need to be a d after "2s/6"? or is it understood?
  • At the time they wouldn't have even written "s"—it would have been understood. The format was just the numbers with either a slash or a full stop between them: for example "2/6" or "2.6" for two shillings and sixpence. (Where whole pounds were involved, you put the pound sign before as you do today.) I've put "s" and "d" in here as people are less familiar with the old money these days, but I'm not sure it's necessary to put "d" every single time. Likewise I think a footnote would be a bit much, unless we're going to start putting them in all articles discussing old money. I think giving the wikilinks the first time and clarifying that 2/6 was "roughly equivalent to a working man's daily wage at the time" is enough for this case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointment
  • It's not clear how the emigrants survived ashore at all. Did they have food with them?
  • Yep; they brought about a year's worth of food with them and had medicines as well, and two of them were doctors. They might have created a new colony in spite of it all if some of the leadership class appointed by MacGregor had really taken the thing by the horns and had a go at it, but the whole thing just seems to have descended into confusion; they didn't bother to build proper shelters for the rainy season, and then they were done for. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
France
  • "enjoined" ditto
  • "requested passports to travel to this country they had never heard of" I think "a" for "this".
  • I like "this" here myself, but I'm happy to debate if you feel strongly about it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how is it the emigrants were in a position to order a police investigation?
  • Reworded: "made complaints to the police". —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "themselves concerned" I'd switch the two words. Maybe it's an EngVar thing.
  • I think you need to make it clearer once the Poyais survivors are home, how widespread the knowledge that Poyais did not exist was. It's not clear how it was he could get way with this in France and subsequently in Britain. The Poyais survivors were told there was no such place, and carried that knowledge home. Then there was extensive press coverage of "the fraud". What am I missing? And then you quote Sinclair "Nobody thought to question the legitimacy of Poyais itself"
  • The amazing thing is that even after they'd been told it didn't exist, it seems that some of them still clung to some delusion that it might be. Hastie and five others signed an affidavit saying that MacGregor wasn't to blame and that fault lay with the leaders of the emigration party. The press articles reporting the fraud and saying Poyais didn't exist were countered by vigorous PR work from Richardson and Hippisley, backed up by Hastie's memoir saying MacGregor wasn't to blame. I've added a bit on this. In short, it was never conclusively proven to the general public at the time that Poyais didn't exist. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating read. Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad you liked it sir. Thank you for all of your help above, and I hope you have a nice rest of the week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

You're obviously in good hands, so just a few comments from me: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "latterly": an uncommon word, and personally, I think it's ambiguous in the given context.
  • "General Gregor MacGregor": Some prefer not to start an article with a rank, and you might hear something about this at FAC.
  • "him abandoning his troops": I have no problem with this construction, nor do I know of any copyeditors or linguists who have a problem with it (in the given context), but a few FAC reviewers object to it.
    • (Riley oar being put in.) It depends on what the focus of the sentence is: if it is the abandonment then we need a gerund: "with his abandoning", but if it is MacGregor then "him" and the participle is fine. While I have oar in hand, my Celtic credentials are Irish rather than Scots, but I think, apropos of Dank's point below, that the definite article is correct, and probably compulsory before "Clan". Tim riley talk 14:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a huge white space on my screen between the lead and the first section.
  • "part of the Clan Gregor": Does the "the" sound odd to anyone else? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't see a huge white space on my screen, apart from the one that results from the table of contents being extended. Does anyone else have a problem along these lines?
    • Thanks for all this Dan. I hope you're well and having a pleasant weekend. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

I greatly enjoyed reading about this audacious character, of whom I had never previously heard (in spite of being married to a Scots lassie). Where did you find him? I have a weakness for rascals (viz. Horatio Bottomley, Tom Driberg etc), hence my pleasure. I don't have much to add to the review, but here are a few points for consideration or action. At present I have covered down to the end of the "Florida republic" section.

  • General point: Sorry to begin on a cautionary note, but I am somewhat wary of 10,000+ word articles unless they are for presidents, world statesmen or otherwise iconic figures like Presley or Muhammad Ali (even then I often cavil a bit). I can't help thinking the lead is longer than is usual – this is one reason for the white space that Dan mentions in his review. There may well be opportunities to shorten other areas of the text, either by rephrasing or removal of unnecessary detail, and I recommend you look at this aspect, hard though it is to decimate one's own text.
  • I'll have a go at cutting the lead down. I appreciate your comment on the length but this is only a little bit over 10,000, so I'm not sure any major cuts are needed; nevertheless suggestions in that direction would be welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-Christian readers won't necessarily know that "Christmas Eve" = 24 December.
  • If anyone's not sure, "24 December" is given in the infobox and the first line of the lead. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Colonel Michael Rafter..." Perhaps explain who this gentleman is, perhaps losing the rank?
  • OK (the rank is one given to him by MacGregor's agents in the first place!) —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Venezuela, under Miranda section" – redundant comma
  • I've had a look at this in preview and I have to say I prefer it with the comma, myself, so I've left this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to start calling him "Colonel MacGregor", and I would have thought that Bolivar was sufficiently distinguished not to need the "Lieutenant Colonel" title
  • Maybe one for Riley, but I think one is extricated from, rather than to?
  • "Miranda's name won him a fresh commission" – I think in this case that "him" needs the name.
  • I've put "the Scotsman" in to mix it up a bit. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Venezuela, under Bolívar" – redundant comma
  • In this section, second paragraph, I got a little confused by "the town", as in: "that prompted a Spanish retreat back into the town" and "The Spanish remained in the town..." Can you clarify?
  • Chaguaramas is the town meant. Have clarified. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "general of division": as a military rank, "divisional general" would read better
  • "Florida republic; Amelia Island affair" section: A clarification of the political status of the Floridas, prior to MacGregor's intervention, would be helpful. Were they Spanish colonies?
  • "would remain ignorant" → "remained ignorant"
  • "MacGregor left Charleston with only 60 men..." – and led the landing party of 78 men?
  • Yes... one source says he left with 60, then another says he landed with 78. Presumably he picked up more on the way? Or perhaps to avoid this being brought up in future it might be prudent to leave out the numbers and just say he had less than 80, or something along those lines? —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow

Thanks for the comments so far Brian, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I came across MacGregor two or three years ago I think while browsing on here, and always hoped I'd be able to do an article about him. Now here we are. I'm going to have a go at trimming the lead down now. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit more. to the end of "Land of opportunity":

  • I think a link sentence is required at the start of the Porto Bello section, to bridge the gap between arrrival in Dublin and the machinations in London which followed soon after
  • OK. Put one at the end of the previous section. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that MacGregor watched the capture of Porto Bello from "one of the ships". Thus far you've only mention the former naval brigantine; how many ships did he have, and where did he get them from?
  • I've added a footnote. He had five ships; the brigantine and the four other vessels that had carried the troops from Britain. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 6 makes reference to "Michael Rafter's book in June 1820". You mention within the note that Michael was William's brother.
  • I'm guessing you mean I should mention within the note the two Rafters were brothers. I have reworded to do so. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a falling out": as a noun, "falling-out" needs a hyphen
  • I would link "Wales". It's not (yet) a sovereign state, and its whereabouts and size may be less widely known outside the UK than one imagines.
  • "The consensus is..." The consensus among historians?
  • I've put "The consensus among MacGregor's biographers" as I'm not sure to what degree all of them are proper academic historians. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, I'm old enough to remember the pre-decimal coinage world. We did not write "2s/6" or "4s/-". We wrote "2/6d" and "4/-". I'm wondering whether it might not be better to write these amounts out, to avoid possible cofusion/misunderstandings? Thus "two shillings and sixpence", "four shillings", etc., perhaps with a note explaining that there were 20 shillings to the pound.
  • OK, sorry about the confusion. I'll just write all of them out, it's probably best. Added a reference for this too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and finish next time. It's riveting reading. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. I'm glad you're enjoying it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are my final comments:

  • "The Poyaisian bonds performed reasonably well..." – "performed" in what sense? On the international financial markets presumably, but this should be paraphrased.
  • Yes. I've reworded to "The Poyaisian bonds' price remained fairly steady..." —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd drop the word "unrelated". The developments you describe may not have been directly related to the Poyaisian swindle, but they're in the ball park, as it were. "Unrelated" suggests something like a natural disaster.
  • I've changed to "they were crippled by developments elsewhere in the market". —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come the Honduras Packet "suddenly sailed away"? Whose decision was this?
  • Don't have the book to hand right now, will come back to this one later. Remember the ship was only hired for a one-way trip, not owned by MacGregor or any of his agents. The ship only hung around at all because it took a while to unload all the supplies the emigrants had brought with them. If I remember correctly the captain of the ship panicked during bad weather, presumably thinking the ship might get dashed on the land, and abruptly left—I seem to recall that this resulted in some of the settlers' supplies not getting offloaded. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've looked it up and my recollection of it was correct. I've expanded on this slightly and added a footnote. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vaguely reassuring..." I'm not sure you can reassure someone "vaguely". Perhaps "asserting" rather than "reassuring"?
  • How about "Reassuring the settlers with vague assertions that the Poyaisian government would find them if they just stayed where they were"?
  • The words "in all" in the penultimate sentence of the "Disappointment" section are redundant.
  • "French government officials became suspicious when 30 more people requested passports..." 30 more people: is this another 30, beyond those previously mentioned? If not, you should lose the "more".
  • Yes, 30 more, beyond those already mentioned. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we to assume that Lehuby's ship never left Le Havre, and that the would-be emigrants eventually dispersed. It would be good to have this confirmed.
  • OK. Have added a sentence explaining this. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Frenchman called Maître Merilhou" – I'm not too keen on this formulation. Just the name would do. (I believe their might be similar usage earlier in the article which I didn't note down.)
  • "Return to Britain; lesser Poyais schemes" section: The first sentence is far too long and complex at present, and needs to be split.
  • In the "Return to Venezuela" section, MacGregor self-pityingly refers to the loss of two of his children. I don't recall when this happened; was this just one more small deception.
  • According to Sinclair's biography, we have no record of what happened to the two boys, Gregorio (born in the Bahamas in 1817) and Constantino (born in Paris in 1824). The daughter born in Ireland in 1821, Josefa, stayed in Scotland and died there in 1872. She had two sons who both died without issue. The lack of record regarding Gregorio and Constantino, juxtaposed with MacGregor's statement that he had lost two children and his wife, could be taken to mean that both boys had predeceased him—or it could be a reference to the earlier claim that he had lost two children during the Siege of Cartagena in 1815. The sources are not clear on the matter. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An amazing story. I can't imagine how in the course of my reading I've never heard anything of MacGregor or Poyais. My loss – I hope this article will get the readership it deserves. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed it so much, Brian. Thank you very much for the review, and I'll come back to the point about the ship sailing away later on. Cheers! And be sure to pass on word of this finest of Scottish exports to your dear lady wife. I'm sure as a fellow Caledonian she'll enjoy hearing about him too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I have answered the point about the ship above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gregor_MacGregor/archive1&oldid=1138561618"