Talk:Erskine Childers (author)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this up. Will work on it over the weekend, likely in fits and starts. Fee free to respond as I go, or when I'm done, at which point I'll ping you. Ping me if anything's unclear.

Two immediate thoughts. First, I see the lead editor hasn't contributed in over a decade. I'm not sure about the etiquette in such circumstances. I can't think a Talkpage notification would be of much value in these circumstances. Second, I've read the (two) previous discussions on a change of title. Personally, I think he's indisputably the most famous Erskine Childers, and note he's the only EC on here. For those reasons, I'd personally propose dropping the (author) element. But it's not a GAN issue, so we can safely park it. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Infobox

• "Known for - Navigation" - I appreciate it's hard to summarise details of such a varied life in a box, but I would have thought Riddle of the Sands (RotS) and his Republicanism (and death) are at least as notable.

Lead

• A bit short - it's a substantial article and warrants a slightly more substantial lead. I don't think two, short, para.s sufficiently cover the content. It's probably something like - introductory para. (including all his notable relatives/descendants) / para. on his writings, partic. RotS / para. on his political/soldiering careers / para. on his Republicanism and death.
• Cites in lead - I loathe these. And I'm not sure I accept the rationale for having them here which is used on the Talk page. Personally, I'd move them all to the first line of Early life and expand the notes in the cites into a full stand-alone footnote.

• Expanded. All cites dispensed with.

Early life

• "although seemingly healthy, Anna was confined to an isolation hospital, where she died six years later" - this isn't cited and sounds a bit odd. Not unwell, but still confined for six years until her death? Do any of the sources have material which could clarify/explain this a little more? This, [1], a sadly-unusable blog but a VERY well-informed and reliable one, suggests that Anna took the children to Ireland after her husband's death. This, [2] however, suggests Anna also died from tuberculosis.

• Expanded and referenced.

• "They were treated kindly there and Erskine grew up knowing and loving Ireland" - not sure about the tone. Perhaps, "Well-treated by his extended family, Childers (not Erskine) grew up with a strong affection for, and knowledge of, Ireland" - or some such?

• New wording.

• "the editor of Cambridge Review" - "the editor of the Cambridge Review"

• Done.

• "Although Erskine was an admirer of his cousin Hugh Childers, a member of the British Cabinet working for Irish home rule, at this stage he spoke vehemently against the policy in college debates" - I'm trying to get my head round the chronology. Childers was born in 1870, so he went to Cambridge in about 1888? The first Home Rule Bill (when Hugh Childers was Home Sec.) was 1886. But Erskine surely hadn't become President of Magpie aged 16? Do the sources have the dates for his time at Trinity? On a related point, what did he do between leaving Cambridge and becoming a HoC clerk in 1895?

• Clarified chronology and expanded the "gap".

• "and which was to dog him for the rest of his life" - the tone is again a tad flowery. Perhaps, "and which persisted"?

• Changed wording.

• Sailing

• "a friend from schooldays" - I don't think Runciman was at Haileybury, but he was at Trinity. Do the sources definitely say "friend from schooldays", as opposed to "college days"? As an aside to the Cambridge dates query above, Runciman was also born in 1870 and graduated from Trinity in 1892. That sounds right. But if Childers was a contemporary, I don't see how he was debating the 1st HR Bill there in 1886, when he was only 16?

• Changed wording—it was the aftermath of the failed Bill.

• "He sold the Shulah in 1895 to a Plymouth man following a trip around the Lizard in a heavyish sea" - arguably, the whole sentence is over-detailed, but I think the identity of the purchaser is definitely a detail too many. And is "heavyish" a word?

• Trimmed and changed wording.

• "in Sunbeam, a boat he shared with William le Fanu and other friends" - I'm guessing this isn't Thomas Brassey's Sunbeam?

• Clarified. Brassey's Sunbeam was 532 tons, Childers's was 15.

Boer War

• "it was something of a disappointment that the HAC detachment was initially not used" - a couple of things. "something of a disappointment" is tonally awkward for me. So, perhaps, "After a three-week voyage, the company was disappointed not to see immediate action..." or some such. And I was puzzled by the HAC detachment, firstly what was it? and secondly, why is Childers in a HAC detachment when he joined the CIV? Could you put (HAC) after the earlier mention of the Hon. Artillery Comp. And do the sources explain the relationship between the CIV and the HAC? I assume that the former served as part of the latter.

• Clarified.

• "However, it was a smartly executed defence" - I share a weakness for beginning sentences with "however". However, there are some reviewers (particularly at FAC) for whom it is anathema. They are generally correct that the sentence is better without. Here, I think it could be dropped with no loss. There are further instances.

• Done.

• "when conscription in Ireland was under consideration, when he wrote" - can we avoid the duplicate "when" by replacing the second with "and".

• Done.

First World War

• "Although in 1914 it could be argued that, in the case of war, the Irish Volunteers might fight on the side of Britain" - who's doing the arguing here? Wikipedia, in its own voice? Is it that some people in the establishment at the time felt this to be a possibility, and thus turned a blind eye to Childers's gun-running? If so, we need to make that clear. This leads me to a bigger question. We touch on the Asgard incident here, and in the sailing section. But I am still don't really understand it. What was Childers's status at the time? A private citizen? I think so. Nonetheless, a month before war, he's buying arms in/from Germany and shipping them to Ireland at a time the country, and the political world, are in uproar over Home Rule, see Curragh incident. And yet nobody bats an eyelid, and the next month he's called up? A call-up instigated by WSC, who later came to loathe him! I'm aware of some of the wilder conspiracy theories (he was a Brit spy all along, and the Asgard scheme was designed to provoke the nationalists into an ill-prepared uprising etc.) I think we need a bit of clarification/expansion here, if the sources permit it. As an aside, p.10 of the Army Intelligence file you reproduce later in the article, makes very clear that Army Intelligence at least was fully aware of his role at Howth.

• John Redmond made this argument—inserted. I couldn't establish how Childers "got away with it" in July 1914, especially as he was trying to get maximum publicity. Expanded the gun-running, but the puzzle remains.

Understood. I’ve seen sources that suggest the PR aspect was in fact the main driver, and that the obsolete rifles were secondary. It’s all rather odd - but we can only go as far as the sources. KJP1 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Expanded, and "largely symbolic" added.

• "However, Childers believed..." - another "however" that could probably go.

• Gone.

Irish Convention

• "Plunkett was obliged to report to the prime minister that no agreement could be reached" - is that entirely fair to the Convention? I think it's arguable that the German 1918 Spring Offensive and the British Gov.s response were the ultimate causes of its failure. Given its complexity, perhaps it would be simpler to go for something like, "Talks lasted nine months but agreement had not been reached when the German Spring 1918 offensive and the British Government's reaction brought its deliberations to an end"?

• Expanded the reason for convention's failure, inserted the Spring Offensive war crisis.

Writings - In the Ranks of the C.I.V.

• "and it sold in substantial numbers." - the rule of thumb on citations is that, as a minimum, each para. should conclude with one. This could therefore do with a citation.

• Added.

Writings - RotS

• "based not on Henry Childers but on yachting enthusiast Walter Runciman" - you've already introduced and blue linked Runciman in Sailing. Perhaps, "his long-term friend and yachting enthusiast WR", without the bluelink?

• Overlink removed. Some overenthusiasm trimmed.

Writings - Cavalry Controversy

• I've read the Talk Page debate and agree that this should be included as a notable aspect of EC's life/career. I think it summarises it nicely and isn't overlong.

Conversion

• Childers's Rebuttal to the Dail (given in External links) has an interesting comment from Childers himself, "One can only hope by the help of Providence to grow from a wrong state of feeling into a right state of feeling, and from that time forward my life simply was this—that by a process of moral and intellectual conviction I came away from Unionism into Nationalism and finally into Republicanism. That is a simple story." I think this would be worth including, as Childers's own explanation for his trajectory.

• This is an illuminating speech but, because of its length, I've only added the most salient point. I've changed the source from the link in the FR section to a print book, to avoid duplication with FR—the link's well worth keeping.

• "was his realisation that, given more patient and skilful negotiation, the Boer War could have been avoided" - I'm not sure about this. It sounds like we're saying, as a fact and in Wikipedia's voice, that, handled better, the war could have been avoided. Could this be addressed by replacing "realisation" (which suggests it is a fact) with "view" (i.e. EC believed that it could have been avoided).

• Done.

Home Rule and Civil War

• Chronology - I think these sections need a bit of a re-order. The HR section concludes with his losing his seat in the June 1922 election. The CV section immediately following begins with his involvement in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which concluded in December 1921. I think the HR section needs a mention of the Irish War of Independence and to conclude with the Anglo-Irish Treaty material. The CV section could then begin with the debates on the Treaty between December 1921 and January 1922 and then flow into the Civil War.

• Expanded, chronology adjusted, extra sub-heads added.

• "At the termination of the talks, English negotiator David Lloyd George" - that's a rather odd way to describe the, proudly Welsh, British Prime Minister!

• Fixed.

• "was too infamous to be of any practical use, despite his considerable military experience" - you've two uses of "considerable experience" in two sentences. I'd drop the second clause here and move the "lowly rank" clause to the end of the previous sentence.

• Done.

Trial and appeal

• "Childers's lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court" - would this, Supreme Court of the Irish Free State, be a better bluelink?

• Fixed.

Legacy

• WSC and de Valera are great as, wildly differing, contemporary reactions. But I think a little more is needed. Certainly, I'd mention the enduring popularity of RotS, as his fame is now primarily as a novelist. Then, do we know how he is viewed today, particularly in Ireland? There's clearly still interest, [3][4], but is there any scholarly coverage? This, [5] has quite a nice quote from the Irish Times, "every generous mind will deplore the irony of fortune that drove a scholar, a soldier and gentleman into fatal conflict with his own country’s greatest act of reconciliation [the Treaty]". Lastly, probably appropriate to again mention his son as President, and perhaps his grandson?

• Small expansion from RTE.

I went through Gale's online index to The Times but I couldn't find the 2 April 2006 article. I couldn't find a RS for the the Irish Times piece of 25 November 1922.

• "any writings based upon the extensive and meticulous collection of papers and documents should be locked away from anyone's eyes until 50 years after his death". Two things. I think it's the archive, rather than writings based upon it, which Molly ordered closed. And "locked away from anyone's eyes" is a bit purple. Perhaps, "that Childers's extensive and meticulous collection of papers and documents relating to his involvement in the Irish struggles of the 1920s should be kept closed until 50 years after his death"?

• Fixed.

Dramatisations

• Not a big fan of this section. It reminds me of those bloody "Media appearances" sections people always want to add at the end of articles on historic houses. It's also weakly-sourced; Youtube, a self-published source, and IMDb would not pass FAC and probably shouldn't pass GA. It also ends a great article on what, for me, is a rather weak note. That said, it's not a deal-breaker if better sources can be found.

• No acceptable sources found. Whole section deleted.

References

• This looks good, but I need to work through it in a bit more detail. I'll list any issues here. Numbers relate to this version, [6].

General - (a) ISBNs - we've a mix of 10 and 13 digits, hyphenated and unhyphenated. Doesn't matter which, but they should be consistent throughout. And (b) Books - some are cited in full, and some are not - as noted below, some of the sources used are included in Further reading. If they are, the full book details aren't given in this, References, section. I think they should come out of FR and appear here, with full details at first mention. Actually, my preference would be to split Footnotes/References/Sources/Further reading into 4 separate sections and sfn the whole lot! But ignore that.

10 - under Wikipedia:COMMONNAME would it be easier for the reader to call the Countess of Oxford and Asquith, Margot Asquith?

71 - super picky, why is there both a full stop and a colon between the two parts of the title? I appreciate that's how Worldcat produces it, but I don't think it's right. A nation in arms. : a social study of the British army in the First World War

75 - we have the OCLC but nothing else. Shouldn't we have the full details?

77 and 91 - can these be combined.

116 - Garrett Fitzgerald - this is listed as being in Gaelic, but it isn't.

121/122 - missing ISBNs, [7] [8]

131 - I get a "Janus Decommissioned" message. Is there a way of re-linking it?

132/133/135 - as noted above, I don't think we can use these as they don't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

134 - the only one of the four sources in Dramatisations which meets RS doesn't appear to support the content. It's a pre-production notice, issued before casting/filming had begun.

((outdent}}

• All these either caught and fixed or not now used. "77" and "91" are separate works.

Further reading

• A couple of things here. First, it contains books that are used and cited in the article, e.g. Boyle/Ring. I don't think they should be in FR. Second, there's a view at FAC, which I understand, that if books listed in FR contain material of value, they should be used and cited. If they don't contain material of value, then why are they in FR? In short, what's the point of the section? That said, I'm fine with it remaining, but I don't think it should include works that are actually used as Sources.

• Books in FR are now sources.

External links

• Wikiquote - any idea why this doesn't link to the right page?
• Pathe - this gives a 404 error.

• Both fixed.

Review Summary

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is generally of a very high standard. I've made a few suggestions where, for me, it strays a little way from the encyclopaedic to the purple.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think it now meets all MoS requirements. My only initial concern was the brevity of the Lead. The nominator has addressed this admirably. There is a Talkpage comment that suggests a preference for a strictly chronological approach, and there are places where the article revisits topics previously covered. But I think the thematic approach is understandable and sensible. My only concern is the end of the Home Rule section and the start of the Civil War section, where I do think a more chronological approach would help.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   It is accurate and well-supported by a range of reliable sources.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   I have flagged those few instances in the last section where I don't think the sources meet RS.

   c. (OR):

   No evidence of OR found.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig doesn't suggest any issues,[9] but I'll also do some spot-checking of sources. Have now checked all of the available, on-line sources and am satisfied on this point.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   I think the only areas where a little expansion might be possible/desirable are the Asgard Incident, and whether anything more/more recent can be added to Legacy. I've flagged these and the nominator will take a look.

   b. (focused):

   There have been some robust discussions on the Talkpage as to what should, and should not, be covered. I think the right balance has now been struck.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All good.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   It is well-illustrated by the images available. Many/most of these are not of the highest quality, due to their age, but they are what they are.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Captions are fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   No need to place On Hold. Nominator is actively responding as the review progresses.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Tentative effort to expand lede and infobox prepared and will be added shortly—further suggestions welcome. As the talk page squabbles over the article name have long ago subsided, it seems possible now to remove all the references from the lede. I'm reluctant to change the article title just now, in case the issue starts up again—it looked a bit acrimonious at the time. Following up on your further suggestions in due course. Many thanks.--AntientNestor (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure, it's a very interesting, and well-written article, on an extraordinary life. The lead redraft in your Sandbox will fit the bill very well. Can't do any more this evening but will pick it up tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll get on with implementing these suggestions, in stages, over the next few days. Again, many thanks for taking this on and for your hard work.

The lead looks great! And your intended approach is fine. Sorry, I know the comments look a bit daunting, but I am nearly done. I'll then summarise everything in the table. It may be easiest, for us both, if you splice in your responses directly below my individual comments. And they are comments/suggestions, so don't feel obliged to implement them if you disagree. Generally, the time scale for GA is 7 days, but we can be completely flexible about this if more time is needed. And ping me if you've any queries. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic progress - it is looking very nice indeed! The article shouts FAC! KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Please continue to keep a close eye, in case my changes introduce new errors!--AntientNestor (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

References (ending at 160) seems to flow into Sources without a break. Do we need a section header, “Sources”? KJP1 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Done.

I think I'm just about finished, but there may well be a few points I've missed.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. You've done a superb job and the article looks absolutely great. It was a pleasure to review it, and I'm delighted to pass it. Thank you for engaging so effectively with the review. If you are thinking of FA, and in my view the article certainly warrants it, you may find Wikipedia:Peer review helpful. It has the advantage over GA of giving you a wider range of views. That said, it can be a bit moribund at times. If you do go to FA, please ping me, and I'd be pleased to comment. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1: The article's success owes a lot both to your grasp of the broad issues and also to your detailed suggestions. Thank you.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)