Talk:Aberdeen Savings Bank

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article creation[edit]

This article has been largely prepared from the official history, which ended in 1896, and Horne's history, published in 1947. The post-war history is therefore bare, saving only for the Bank's merger in 1983. There is a history published in 1967, Aberdeen Savings Bank: Its History from 1815 to 1965, but this has not been accessed.

Bebington (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit tag added[edit]

This is a good article, but I think it needs a bit of copyediting. Happy to discuss further. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy in asking first. I am always open to suggestions though I do find that alterations are often a personal opinion on style rather than mistakes, Bebington (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly fine, but there are sentences that should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic style:

The Savings Bank’s modest start

The reconstruction did create one anomaly that took half a century to correct.

The old trustees even started to charge rent to the Bank

These read like an internal history, not an uninvolved third party. I will correct as best I can.

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that when I saw your comment that the article could do with “a bit of copyediting”, I was apprehensive about what I would find. In the event, there were three instances and I could not see any substantive reason to change. I have been copyedited many times, including by academic publishers, and they tend to concentrate only on obvious errors. I could have written the relevant sentences many different ways, and so could you. I think it is best to leave it as it is. Bebington (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may make a few copyedits. Feel free to revert. Please remember that no one "owns" Wikipedia articles and edits don't have to get any particular editors approval. I was trying to be polite. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do know you ere being polite - I had thanked you for your courtesy. Bebington (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]