Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Bondfield/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Margaret Bondfield

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield is a significant though relatively overlooked figure in the long struggle for women's equality. Perhaps it was her unglamorous old-fashioned manner – long black skirts, schoolmistressy voice etc – that put people off, but she has a terrific record of "firsts" to her credit, culminating in her appointment as Britain's first woman cabinet minister in 1929 – not bad for an uneducated country "shopgirl" who left school at 13. As a suffragist she was an "adultist", fighting for the extension of the franchise to all women and all men, regardless of gender, class or property qualifications. Her stint as Minister of Labour (1929–31) came at a hideously difficult time, and she has been castigated within the Labour movement for her actions in office – but it is hard to see, in the circumstances, how she could realistically have acted otherwise. So here she is, after a pretty thorough PR process, ready for your judgement on her FA-worthiness. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Well done. And as for the attire, black is the new black.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and for previous review help. I can't help feeling that Miss B's image as a black-clad killjoy is unfair; see this hilarious clip of MacDonald introducing (or trying to introduce) his 1929 cabinet. She looks rather charming, I think. See also Lansbury, glowering in the background, Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment(s) I looked at this article at peer review when it was already well written and sourced and it has improved since. Taking another look..

• • In the infobox the abbreviation "PC" is used for Privy Council of the United Kingdom, would a reader arriving at the article understand this abbreviation?

• • It is normal to present and link postnominals in this way. I have, however, equated postnominals as between text and infobox. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • In the Lead Second MacDonald ministry is wikilinked twice, but with different text (Labour government of 1929–31 & second Labour government) - is this needed?

• • Second link removed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • In Childhood and family, William Bondfield is credited as "co-designer of a flying machine". I presume this is the Aerial steam carriage however he is not mentioned in the wp article about it with William Samuel Henson and John Stringfellow being given credit - I do not have access to the Hamilton reference used to support this claim to be able to check.

• • I can't speak for the WP article you mention, but William Bondfield's accociation with the flying machine is mentioned in several sources, including Margaret's biography, Fran Abrams, and Hamilton who says: "He and William Stringfellow worked together on the aeroplane model actually exhibited in flight at the Great Exhibition of 1851, which anticipated some of the essential features—propellor and tubular boilers—of modern machine". Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Interesting name variation here William Stringfellow could be a corruption of William Samuel Henson & John Stringfellow.— Rod ^talk 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • After a bit more looking I think the name William Stringfellow is definitely wrong ( and may come from the Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette 24 October 1934) but you might want to look at the Biography of John Stringfellow in which Margaret Bondfield is mentioned several times.— Rod ^talk 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, it seems that Hamilton got Stringfellow's first name wrong – but that's not really a matter for this article, which doesn't acyually mention Stringfellow. I don't see the need to pursue this issue further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • In Campaigns and war, the sentence "Later in the war the government, concerned by Bondfield's association with peace organisations, prevented her from travelling to similar gatherings in Sweden and the United States" might benefit from an additional comma after war - but I'm no grammar expert.

• • The comma you suggest is optional; grammatically correct either way, but in my view preferably omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • In National prominence the claim that she "met Lenin" appears to be uncited - and should Lenin be wikilinked?

• • Lenin is linked in the previous line. Citation for the meeting added; Bondfield gives no details of the meeting, merely mentioning that it took place. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • In Minister of Labour is the claim about her "visible reluctance" supported by the two following references (110 & 111), If it is a quote rather than conjecture/opinion should it be in italics & cited?

• • The wording is my summation of the sources, rather than a quote. Bondfield was a signatory to the Blanesburgh report and was thus being required to introduce legislation that contradicted her personal judgement. Marquand summarises her grudging attitude towards the new legislation: her initial proposals provoked a storm of opposition within her own party and had to be replaced with a more liberal formula. I think my choice of wording is justified. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • In Appraisal and legacy would it be worth saying who "Williamson" is (as has been done previously with Skidelsky)?

• • Philip Williamson is Bondfield's ODNB biographer. This description was inadvertently removed during an earlier prose trimming exercise. I've restored it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Ref 36 (From Note 5) Kay, J.A. gives an error "Missing or empty |url=" message from the cite web template - should this be cite web or book, journal etc?

• • Missing url added - sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Refs 66 (Hull University) and 143 (London Gazette) appear to be PDFs - I have a vague memory that we should include "format=PDF" but I'm not sure if that is a requirement.

• • I've never heard of this as a requirement and don't remember ever doing it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • There are lots of examples on Template:Cite web but as I said it was just so,mething I've been advised to do on other articles.— Rod ^talk 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hope these are helpful.— Rod ^talk 17:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for these comments and for your continuing interest in improving this article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support now all my quibbles have been responded to.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from SchroCat

I'll start the review proper shortly, but a few minor points about the impedimenta at the foot of the page:

References Minor peaks, rather than a proper source review: FN5 should be pp. 218–19 (not 219) FNs75 & 106 may need looking at (is the pp. meant to be there?)

I've fixed these. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Source Review

• As lovely as it is, why is Abingdon linked in Magill's Dictionary of World Biography (and Farnham for Worley's Foundations of the British Labour Party?

• Well, our US friends might wonder where these places are. They are not well known outside the UK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a reason Blythe, Marquand and Skidelsky are linked, but not some of the others? (We have an article for Wilson, A.N., for example)

• I have now authorlinked Hamilton, Pelling and Wilson. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

More soonest - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Happy with the explanation: source review is all good. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No other comments found on the prose. Two detailed read-throughs, with a red pen poised all the way, ready to pounch on the slightest error, found nothing in the text about which I needed to comment. Nice piece of work all round, a thoroughly interesting read and proof, if it were ever needed, that our Featured content is something for which we should feel justifiably proud. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What, not even an ellipsis to sort out? I'm astonished – but thanks for reading through, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(I'd already covered the dots and dashes earlier!) cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

...well, none actually. This was a delight to read with nothing to pick up on other than an adjustment of a ref order (which I fixed). Nice work Brian!

• Support – Cassianto^talk 09:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks indeed! cBrianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were thoroughly dealt with. The text is clearly of FA quality, and the images have been judiciously chosen. Tim riley talk 10:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for support and earlier help with the article (inc. British Library research, invaluable). Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Bondfield_on_tour.jpg has an odd "conflict" tag on it - I'm not quite sure what the tagger thought the issue was, the licensing seems correct

• The cartoon was published in 1898 – full publication details provided. On the face of it, it is clearly PD. Unless the tagger cares to clarify his/her reservations, I propose to take no action . Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just guessing (i am not fond of tagging without explanation either): The original publication was in the UK (?), ideally the image should have an additional UK copyright tag and moved to Commons (probably as Commons:template:PD-UK-unknown, when the "author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry").

• File:BCLM-Mary_Macarthur_6b.jpg: the uploader edited the image, but was almost certainly not the original author - what is the copyright status of the original image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is one of several Macarthur-related images that the uploader, RexxS, has taken from the Black Country Living Museum (this is another). I imagine that he photographed the images in the museum, cropped them and uploaded them to Wikipedia as his own work. I'm pretty certain that copying a perhaps non-free image does not make that copy PD. The photograph in the article of Mary Macarthur was certainly taken before 1921 (she died 1.1.21) and was likely published before then, but without direct information as to the images's origin we can't be sure of its copyright status. So I am removing it from the article – in any event, its relevance to the Bondfield article is fairly marginal. Should I decide to expand the Macarthur article, I will pursue the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.