Talk:Hugh Purcell of Loughmoe

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 May 2020 by reviewer Sulfurboy (talk · contribs).

Essay like

Melcous, please define why you placed the tag on the top of the page. I am not stating that your claim is inaccurate, I was just wondering as to what you meant by it. I will list to points of why I disagree with you. Firstly, I cannot see how it is written in an argumentative style, or what it is arguing about. Second, although I noticed a couple of lines that appear as personal, I am not sure that I agree with your claim that it written personally: it is factual, and unless you can give me an example, nothing else. By "a couple of lines that appear as personal", I referred to the following: a) This Hugh Purcell's grandson was the subject of this article, Hugh Purcell. b) Sir Hugh Purcell's matriarchal ancestors have noble blood, however illegitimate. I will change these to something such as: a) this Hugh Purcell's grandson was Hugh Purcell of Loughmoe. b) Hugh Purcell's matriarchal ancestors are noble. Then I will explain the illegitamacy affair after this sentence, because it is very difficult to fit two facts with cross purposes in one sentence! Lastly, Melcous, how come it says in the template message "original arguments annd personal opinions" - I thoroughly searched it and cannot find a thing! Feel free to correct me. Regards, 17u9e (17u9e)

Badly needs a copy-edit

This would normally be me on my way through, but I have already corrected one apparent typo and one mistranslation, ie builder would be the word in this context, not constructor. I am getting the impression that it is either a translation or written by a non-English speaker who for some reason wants to document this family.

Nothing wrong with that really, but: 1) if you care enough to write the article, please care enough to also run spellcheck, because I don’t see why I, who really doesn’t care about it, should be the one to do so. If necessary change your language settings in your operating system. In particular it should be Surrey not Surry. Both Loughmore and Loughmoe appear to be correct, which I find strange, but ok: why go to the trouble of piping however? Also, English Channel not English channel. 2) I am a bit confused about the 1066 stuff in an article about an Irish baron. Try to explain this better. I get that this was his reward, but why not a castle in a newly-conquered Sussex or wherever, which your article does not make clear. I should not have to break out forensic research methods to find out what territory’s history is in question. Also “group of soldiers” is awful vague, and where was this Roman ruin? That would be much more relevant than wiki linking in “Rome”. At least “Ancient Rome”, geez, and even that’s a meh. Most people don’t need to have the Roman Empire explained to them.

That said, I want to encourage anyone who wants to to work on the article. There seems to be a story there, but you aren’t quite telling it. Feel free to ask me questions; I am not always this cranky. Elinruby (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]