Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Boycott/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:37, 24 January 2012 [1].

Charles Boycott

[edit]

Charles Boycott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Quasihuman | Talk 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article I still think the article meets the FA criteria, no unresolved issues were raised in the last FA nomination. I'm ready to address any concerns that may arise in this. Thnaks in advance to all reviewers. Quasihuman | Talk 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was archived at its last FAC on 19 September last, after attracting very few substantive comments, no opposes, no supports, and has had no significant edits since that date. It should not suffer the same fate twice. I will read through and check out the prose; meantime, can I suggest a piped link from "bought a commission" to Sale of commissions, for the benefit of the casual reader? Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've previously copyedited and peer-reviewed this article, so I feel a bit close to it to outright *support* it at this stage. However I think it's very good, and the subject is fascinating. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose: I'm not completely comfortable with the following phrases and sentences appearing in the article. I don't demand that all of them be changed if you disagree with my opinion. Just trying to help. =)

  • Neighbours would not talk to him. Shops would not serve him. Local labourers refused to tend his house, and the postman refused to deliver his mail. — Not the most fluent way to put things, I think.
  • He died on 19 June 1897 in his home in Flixton after an illness earlier in that year, aged 65. — "aged 65" is pretty far from "He" here.
  • In the first paragraph under "Early life and family", the Boycott/Boycatt spelling issue appears three times; things should be rearranged so that it only has to be dealt with once.
  • He was ill for seven continuous months between August 1851 and February 1852 — A bit redundant.
    • Removed "continuous". I'd be interested in the nature of his illness, if that is specified in the source. Graham87 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know what you guys think, but it still sounds a bit weird to me. I might say "He was ill for seven months between January 1851 and December 1852", but the way it is now, there are exactly seven months from the start to the end date. It's as if I said "He wrote down three numbers between 4 and 6". Well, what three numbers could you write? Also, the between is kind of annoying cause sounds like it might exclude August 1851 and February 1852, which can't be right. How about "He was ill for the seven months from August 1851 to February 1852" or just "He was ill from August 1851 to February 1852"? I don't want to get into too much WP:BIKE though.
      And yeah, I'd agree with Graham87 that if it's convenient, the nature of his illness should be specified. Leonxlin (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, removed the 7 months as redundant. The source for that is vague about the nature of the illness, I'll see if I can dig up info on that from another source. Quasihuman | Talk 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the question on what the illness was, I can find no concrete information on this. There is a suggestion in Boycott that he may have had scarlet fever during his school days, and that this may have been the cause of the later illnesses, but it seems too speculative to include. Quasihuman | Talk 17:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGregor Blacker agreed to sub-let 2,000 acres (810 ha) of land belonging to the Irish Church Mission Society on Achill to Boycott and he moved there in 1854. — I would prefer a comma before "and", or changing it to ", who".
  • a protracted dispute with Mr Carr, the agent for the Achill Church Mission Estate, from which McGregor Blacker leased the lands — Perhaps I'm mistaken, but should "from which" not read "from whom"?
  • Salvage was relatively big business at the time and the local receiver was entitled to a percentage of the sale and was entitled to keep whatever did not sell. — A few funny points add up to a somewhat awkward sentence here.
  • The total rent due to Lord Erne was £500 annually, from which Boycott earned ten per cent — I would prefer "of which", but maybe I'm just being picky.
  • In his time in Lough Mask before the controversy began, Boycott had become unpopular — I would prefer "During his time".
  • Landlords generally divided their estates into smaller farms which were let to tenant farmers. — Is "let" a typo or a usage I'm not familiar with?
  • Farmers were a very politically important group, they had more votes than any other sector of society. — I would prefer "a very important group politically" ("very" does not modify "politically" but "important") and something other than a comma to separate the two clauses.
  • In the Parnell quote, there is inconsistent spacing around the dashes. Is this intended?
  • Social ostracism applied to Boycott — This kind of wording appears at least twice in the article. I may be wrong, but this sounds funny. The first few pages of a Google search show no instances of "applying" ostracism "to" anybody. The only "applying" of ostracism is with the institutional ostracism of ancient Greece. Perhaps the section heading could be retitled "Boycott ostracized"?
  • Lord Erne had agreed to a ten percent reduction due to a poor harvest, however, all but two of the tenants demanded a twenty-five percent reduction. — I am pretty sure there ought to be a semicolon before "however".
  • Erne had refused to accede to the tenants demands. — Missing apostrophe.
  • The next day, a second attempt was made to serve the notices, this was also unsuccessful. — Needs a semicolon.
  • "The Boycott Relief Fund" appears to be incorrectly italicized in the article.
  • In a letter to William Ewart Gladstone, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom requesting compensation, Boycott said that he had lost £6,000 of his investment in the estate. — Missing comma.
  • Boycott returned to England after a number of months. — Awkward.

Leonxlin (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another question: how many other siblings did he have, and what was his position in the family (was he the eldest or youngest child, etc)? Obviously he had at least one brother or sister because his nephew is mentioned in the article. I am also wondering whether he was related to Major Charles Boycott, father of the journalist Rosie Boycott? It's probably less likely that the cricketer Geoffrey Boycott was a relation. Graham87 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is the section on the boycott called "First boycott"? Was there another boycott? Leonxlin (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, none involving Charles Boycott. But of course there were many other notable boycotts. The one involving Charles Boycott wasn't the first, according to that article, but I'm having trouble thinking of a succinct and accurate section title. Graham87 09:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered, simply "Boycott", but that would be vague as it could be referring to the man himself. "The boycott" is forbidden by the MOS. "His boycott" or "Boycott's boycott" is frowned upon, but allowed if it is shorter or clearer than the alternative, as it may be in this case. I favour "His boycott", but am not sure, maybe there's a better alternative. I won't change it until others have commented on this. Quasihuman | Talk 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Is the Boycott book a republication? If not, do you know why it wasn't published until 1997, or was it edited?
  • Is there any possibility of obtaining some of the newspaper obituaries and articles you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On point one, that book is not by the Charles Boycott, but by a decedent of the same name. I have been using it as a primary source for fairly trivial details re family, early life etc. On point two, possibly, I have access to some newspaper archives, but some of the newspapers don't exist anymore, I'll see if I can find access to archives of these tomorrow, and I'll let you know what success I have. Quasihuman | Talk 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started adding some old newspaper refs, these lack author information, and this has caused an inconsistency in the references due to the way the cite news template works (the date is in a different place for the citations without articles), I will try to fix this. I have used the name of the publication as an alternate for the author in the notes, I hope that's ok. Quasihuman | Talk 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times is mentioned twice, the website doesn't even allow access to abstracts without payment, which I am not in a position to do. It is only available to me in the National Library of Ireland in Dublin, The Daily News is mentioned once, that is not available to me at all, the Belfast Newsletter and the Daily Express (Dublin) are available in the National Library. The Freeman's Journal is accessible to me online, and I have added a ref from that paper. The Annual Register and New York Tribune are apparently available on ProQuest, but not to me. I will make a trip to Dublin on Monday to get access to the National Library resources, but The Daily News, The Annual Register, and the New York Tribune will not be available to me. I think I've covered them all there. Quasihuman | Talk 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got access to ProQuest and a limited Times archive; let me know if you've got specific articles you're looking for. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the kind offer, I don't have any specific details re article publication dates, so I will have to visit the National Library to find these details. I was unable to make the trip during the week due to illness, but now that I am well, I will do so tomorrow. In a stroke of luck, I have found The Daily News ref mentioned in the source via the online 19th Century British Library Newspapers archive. The article is not available for free (my university has access), but the archive is searchable for free (link to search). I haven't been able to find any other relevant articles via this archive, except for some obituaries in local British newspapers. Quasihuman | Talk 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The full text of the article appears to be available through this compilation at Project Gutenberg, though it's dated 24 October, not 27 October, and I'm unsure about adding it to the Boycott article. That e-book probably has more information about Boycott as well. I discovered it while trying to find the page number of the Daily News article. Graham87 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course, the Boycott article says that the letter was written on 24 October but it was published on the 27th of that month. I've cited the book in the Boycott article. The later chapter "The Relief of Mr. Boycott" goes into great detail about the military expedition to harvest his crops. Graham87 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, barring a failure of (1c) being discovered in the future. I don't find it particularly necessary to include The Times among the references. Leonxlin (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Too wordy? - First sentence seems too lengthy to digest in one bite. Break into two? "Charles Cunningham Boycott (12 March 1832 – 19 June 1897) was a British land agent whose ostracism by his local community in Ireland as part of a campaign for agrarian tenants' rights in 1880 gave the English language the verb to boycott, meaning "to ostracise". "
I think there are multiple issues here. First, all or nearly all of the information currently in the lead sentence should remain in the lead sentence. The question is how to rephrase it to make it easier to parse. Second, I just looked up boycott on Wiktionary and some other dictionaries, and I don't think "to ostracise" is a good definition. Wiktionary's definition: "To abstain, either as an individual or group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organization as an expression of protest." Here's a stab at a rewriting: "Charles Cunningham Boycott (12 March 1832 – 19 June 1897) was the British land agent whose name gave the English language the verb to boycott ("to abstain from conducting business with") after his local community in Ireland ostracised him in 1880 as part of a campaign for agrarian tenants' rights." Although it's really not much shorter, I think it's a bit easier to read. Thoughts? Leonxlin (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites per paragraph vs per sentence: WP:INTEGRITY suggests that cites be given for each sentence, so that future edits to the paragraph do not cause the citations to get lost etc. I understand that some of the paragraphs have just a single source, but the WP trend for top quality aritcles is towards a cite per sentence. See WP:INTEGRITY for details.
  • Cite needed: "Boycotting had strengthened the power of the peasants in Ireland." This is a critical fact, and absolutely needs a specific cite so interested readers could read about it in more detail. Many other sentences in article are of comparable import, yet lack specific cites.
    That particular sentence seems to be a sort of summary of the rest of the paragraph, the contents of which are presumably found in the source cited at the end. Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better title: Section title "Boycott brought to public attention" ... probably should be "Letter to The Times" or similar.
    Well, that section is not just about the letter to The Times. How about "Newspaper coverage"? Leonxlin (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Boycott" from section titles: Generally the (name of the) subject of the article is not repeated in section titles. For example "Boycott ostracized" should probably be "Ostracism by community" or "Community action" or similar.
    Changed "Boycott ostracized" to "Community action" and "Saving Boycott's crops" to "Saving the crops". Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify date: The year that the term "boycott" was coined is key. I presume, from context, it happend concurrently, but it would be better for readers if you explicitly supplied the date of the following conversation: "According to James Redpath, the verb to boycott was coined by Father O'Malley in a discussion between them.".
    I would doubt that the specific date of that discussion is known. I would agree though that some comments about early usages of the word would be in order. Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The date is in the source, so I have added it. Quasihuman | Talk 14:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later boycotts? - The section "Aftermath" does a good job of covering the immediate aftermath (1880-1881) ... but I see no discussion of long-term consequences. I expect to see discussion of (1) widespread adoption of term "boycott" in English usage; (2) list of a few significant boycotts that followed the original one (esp 1881 - 1910 era); (3) a big-picture summary how Boycotts are now a standard form of direct action in many countries. Lifting a small amount of material from the boycott article to meet these needs would not be inappropriate.
    Regarding (2) and (3): I doubt that there were any long-term consequences. There was this boycott long before Charles Boycott, and discussions of the boycotts during the American Revolution don't give any indication of the concept of a boycott being new or interesting. It's hard to imagine that the boycotts in the three decades following Boycott's controversy had anything to do with Charles Boycott. Furthermore, even if the 1880 boycott did have long-term consequences, if they weren't mentioned in the sources and biographies of Charles Boycott, then I think writing anything more about it would constitute original research. Leonxlin (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Leonxlin, boycotting was used before, what changed with this incident was that it was given a name. Discussing how the name came into popular use would be relevant, so I will see what the sources say about this. Quasihuman | Talk 10:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've adressed point 1, this is not discussed much in the pre-existing sources, so I've had to dig a little deeper. As explained previously, points 2 and 3 are problematic because in essence, boycotting existed before Boycott, what changed with Boycott is what it was called. It would be synthesis to connenct Boycott to boycotts after his time (with the exception of the boycotts covered in the Aftermath section), because the sources do not make such a connection. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Erne section out of place: The "Lord Erne" section needs work: (1) it is just a recitation of basic facts: no flow connecting it to prior or subsequent sections; (2) it apparently is giving background info, yet it is located after key mention of Lord Erne in paragraphs above it. (3) To a casual reader, the Lord vs Boycott can be confused: who owned the land; who was getting ostracized? The distinction needs to be emphasized. Maybe the best solution is to eliminate it as a section, and move the material to the top of "Life in Lough Mask before controversy" section?
    Merged the "Lord Erne" subsection into the top of the "Life in Lough Mask before controversy" section. The relationship between Lord Erne and Boycott seems clear enough to me. Leonxlin (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: we are past the three-week mark, with no consensus to promote. In such cases, the fastest route to promotion is typically a fresh start in a few weeks, assuring that all issues raised have been addressed before returning to FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charles_Boycott/archive2&oldid=1136458885"