| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- lede
- The note in the lede seems a bit off. I think it's better to place this as an actual note after the first quote from this work.
- Agreed: a slightly amended version of the note has been added to the footnotes and is referenced at the first quotation.
- The term division is jargon imo. Could you add an explanation? Especially in the lede, it's not recommended that leaders have to rely on links. Even following the link, I still don't quite understand why the government lost its majority from some of its party members voting against it. Am I right in my understanding that they have to 'lose the whip'?
- Disagree. Division is absolutely NOT jargon. It means that MPs split into two division lobbies to either support or oppose a motion. As for "lose the whip", please do not be influenced by the complete and absolute buffoon that is temporarily (and unelected) in Downing Street today. Chamberlain's government did not lose its majority: the point is that the vastly reduced majority was devastating in the circumstances and Chamberlain felt obliged to resign in the national interest. Unlike Johnson, Chamberlain was an honourable man.
- In terms of lost majority, my mistake. I should have stated drastically reduced majority. I still believe that division is specific terminology used to described parliamentary procedures and therefore jargon. Voting against the government still doesn't automatically imply that they stop supporting the government in all cases, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've altered the word order and replaced "division" with "vote" which should clarify the point. I suppose as regards the intentions of the Tory "rebels", they were focused on a matter of vital national interest which transcended party politics. They wanted a national government which included Labour and they wanted a different PM. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could an explanation be giving before the first introduction of Hansard (f.i. the parliamentary archives of Hansard). Terms that require prior knowledge are especially discouraged under WP:EXPLAINLEAD.
- Amended to "Hansard parliamentary archive". No Great Shaker (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There were calls for national unity to be established by formation of an all-party coalition, but it was not possible for Chamberlain to reach agreement with the opposition Labour and Liberal parties who refused to serve under his leadership, though they would accept a different Conservative leader and, after Chamberlain resigned, they agreed to serve under Churchill. This sentence would benefit form being split into two.
- Agreed. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- preamble
- I'd merge the two last paragraphs.
- Agreed. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- rest article
- Under Westminster rules in such debates, held to allow for wide-ranging discussion of a variety of topics, the question is not usually put to a vote: bit of an awkward sentence. Also, the word question might be confusing. Would matter/topic of debate be better?
- Amended to "Under Westminster rules, in debates like this which are held to allow for wide-ranging discussion of a variety of topics, the issue is not usually put to a vote". However, "question" is the correct term but I agree that the reader needs to be able to understand the complexities of Parliament.
- (not for GA: had to Google 'to make light of'. Maybe an easier synonym is available. I've only lived in UK for two years, not a native speaker, so my judgement may be off).
- No problem. It's a colloquial term and I've changed it to "treat as unimportant" which is what it means.
- The Speaker had to call on members not to interrupt, but they continued to repeat the phrase throughout Chamberlain's speech and, reacting with what has been described as "a rather feminine gesture of irritation", he was eventually forced to defend its original usage directly, claiming that he would have expected a German attack on the Allies at the outbreak of war when the disparity of arms was at its greatest I don't fully understand this sentence. Can you split it in two? What original usage does the sentence refer to? What is disparity of arms?
- Split into two sentences as requested. The phrase "disparity of arms" (now amended) meant the difference in armed power between GB and Germany at that time. Germany was considerably better armed than us in 1939 but by 1942 the opposite was the case, especially after the USA entered the war.
- Leo Amery said Chamberlain's speech left the House in a restive and depressed, though not yet mutinous, state of mind This is the first mention of Leo Amery. An introductory word (Tory/Labour, backbench/cabinet) would clarify.
- Good point. Amery was a backbench Tory MP at that time. He later joined Churchill's government.
- which amounted to him having direction of is that correct English?
- Yes. Will be glad to amend it if you have a better suggestion.
- Okay. Afraid I don't have a better suggestion. I think this sentence is sufficiently clear even for people unfamiliar with this specific idiom. Do note that generally, idioms are to be avoided Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- the section title An ordinary debate transforms feels like an opinion.
- Not an opinion as the narrative shows but I agree it's a bit headline-ish so I've altered it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is re-armament military jargon? If so, can it be replaced by easier words?
- It is military terminology and NOT jargon.
- Maybe the word jargon has a negative connotation, but its definition is terminology specific to a field (such as military).
- (Not GA: You might want to avoid using more uncommon idioms, such as: this brought Churchill to his feet).
- Changed to "Churchill intervened and said".
- which accurately reflected the mood of the House: is this sufficiently true to be said in Wikivoice? Or should somebody be attributed this statement?
- It is attributed in the next sentence by Jenkins as cited.
- who succeeded Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty: I think the word later should be added? This hasn't happened yet?
- Disagree. Alexander directly succeeded Churchill after Winston became PM. "Later" is superfluous" and would amount to bad English given the context.
- Okay.
- He explained that even the successful use of the battleship HMS Warspite at Narvik had put her at risk from many hazards; had any come to pass, the operation, now hailed as an example of what should have been done elsewhere, would have been condemned as foolhardy. Too many commas and semi-colons to easily read.
- I completely disagree because that is how semi-colons are meant to be used. Even so, I've split it into two sentences.
- At 23:00, the Speaker rose to put the question. Maybe use more modern way of expressing this?
- No, the modern way of putting this is exactly as it was in 1940. "Putting the question" remains the 2019 phraseology and so it is "modern". Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article would benefit from more paraphrasing of quotes. Not all quotes are sufficiently noteworthy in my opinion to make up half of the text (discussing the actual debate). I think a better proportion is 1/3. Consider shortening the longer quotes.
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
(Not GA: This is a difficult one for me to judge. The original prose has a few weasel words. The quoted text however is full of them, as expected from political debate and subsequent framing. I feel that quotes are sometimes used a bit too much as an 'excuse' to use emotional language. This makes the text more readable, but maybe also on the boundaries of encyclopian style. An example: speaking to a "crescendo of applause" )
- Have added the necessary citation for that quotation which was missing.
- In the further speeches subsection, very pointedly seems a word to watch, as does 'dismissed' (described is better). The reader can decide whether this is pointedly.
- Have removed "very pointedly" as it was unnecessary. As for "dismissed", that is correct as per the source but I will accept "described".
- More possible weasel words: listened in breathless silence.
- Removed "breathless" although it is what the source says.
- And to hear Amery's memorable conclusion (leave memorable out?).
- Removed "memorable" although it is an accurate adjective.
- payback is possibly too negative/too emotional.
- Amended to "retribution", although "payback" is used by the source and is perfectly acceptable in this context.
- An angry Chamberlain -> Chamberlain. Anger is clear from quote.
- Agreed. Amended.
- to sit down to a 'strained silence'.
- Okay: amended to "There was silence as Lloyd George sat down".
- Lloyd George produced a memorable analogy. Again, the word memorable is editorialising.
- Have removed "memorable" although it is the adjective used accurately by Jenkins whose further comments are cited in the following sentence.
- by his manner and brilliance of speech might need quote marks.
- Yes, better with quotes as Nicolson said it.
- by quoting Britain's greatest naval hero. This is obviously an opinion and should not be stated in Wikivoice.
- Replaced with name.
- wild, unrestrained cheering. Again, should not be said in Wikivoice.
- Replaced with "the government's opponents cheered him".
- maverick not in Wikivoice.
- Removed.
- You have commented that the adjectives are accurate and given in the source. I agree with those statements, but I still think they are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. This is explained well in the Manual of Style's Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch page.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
The article is somewhat light on inline citations, but gives one for every statement that is likely challenged.
- There are nearly 100 inline citations. Please list any sentences or paragraphs where you think extra citations are needed.
- My preference (again, not a GA criterion) is at least one inline citation per paragraph. You might want to consider that if you ever decide to go for FA. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any paragraphs that have no citations. The quotations are cited at the colon where they are introduced. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
The works cited are written from a variety of perspectives. At least one portrays Chamberlain in a more positive light than Churchill tried to paint him in.
- I don't understand this comment. Churchill was very generous towards Chamberlain after he became PM, perhaps too much so.
- I'll defer to your knowledge here. Read some reviews of the sources used to assess reliability.
- It's true that some writers are very much anti-Chamberlain because of appeasement, while others are more sympathetic. Churchill was very fond of Chamberlain despite their former differences re appeasement, especially after Chamberlain supported him in the Halifax fiasco during Dunkirk.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
The nominator uses direct quotes from a primary source, which can be considered boundary OR. Many of those are justified by the fact that secondary sources also seem to refer to this part of the debate or even refer to the quotes themselves. There is, however, one sentence that tends towards original research:
None of their speeches are mentioned much outside Hansard. The last one, Brooke, finished at 21:14 and gave way to A. V. Alexander who wound up for Labour. He began by referring to a comment made by Brooke, a Chamberlain supporter. Alexander said:
None of their speeches are mentioned much outside Hansard is, I think, original research. Including this quote, which is apparently not quoted in the secondary sources, could arguably also be seen as OR: When he (Brooke) referred to the need for men with burning hearts and cool heads, I confess it struck me that one could hardly recognise in the intervention of the Prime Minister this afternoon the quality of a cool head.
- It isn't OR but it isn't essential either so I've removed it.
- Okay, I thought you may have yourself concluded that the speeches aren't mentioned much outside of Hansard, which would constitute OR of course. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
Did the copyvio test. The article contains, by its nature, a lot of quotes, they popped up but are all properly attributed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
The article is quite long (46kb readable prose), but no specific parts are overly detailed. You might want to consider deleting some sentences:
- Seconds into his speech, members had to call upon him to speak up. He replied that he was a Welshman and would warm up once he got going: he did. ::Okay: removed that one although it is sourced.
- despite being a lay preacher and a teetotaller. I think this is a detail and can be removed. The sentence serves as providing context why this person is not like Churchill and therefore requires knowledge from the reader about Churchill himself that some people (at least me) don't have.
- Changed to "despite being completely different in character and personality". Churchill was an atheist and, famously, a heavy drinker (brandy for breakfast, etc.). Poles apart from the likes of Alexander.
(not GA criterion. maybe critically look at some of the less important quotes. WP:Quotation discourages the use of too many quotations. While this topic needs a substantial amount of citation, I think it needs to reduce the amount a bit before it can be considered for FA).
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
I'm not expert in this part of history, so I wouldn't be able to detect any subtle forms of non-neutrality. Nothing in the article would make me believe there is though.
- I have tried to be completely objective throughout. If there is anything that hints at my intense dislike of the Conservative Party, given that I am a left-wing socialist, please point it out because I do want the article to be neutral and strictly objective. Thanks.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
Talk page and history indicate stability. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
I usually do this first, as it's often an easy green tick. Unfortunately, there is probably a problem with that beautiful painting of Chamberlain, which might not be free to use for another 6 years. No problems with any of the other figures on Commons. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
Good selection of figures and captions. (Not needed for GA of course, but picture of the actual debate would be nice if available). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not possible. Cameras in Parliament at that time were strictly forbidden.
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
Thanks for bringing such a well-written and interesting article to GAN and therefore to my attention. I enjoy reading it. I do realise that some of my comments (about the words to watch) will make the article have less of a literary quality to comply with the encyclopic style and that that can be considered as more boring. Sorry for that.
- No need to apologise. It's a very thorough review and it has helped that another pair of eyes has seen what mine have missed, which is the whole point of a review. Thanks very much.
|
