Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Benjamin Disraeli/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benjamin Disraeli

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Disraeli was one of the most flamboyant and unorthodox politicians of his era. User:Wehwalt and I have been working on this article over recent weeks; it was already a substantial one, thanks largely to ten years' contributions by User:Mackensen, and we have added considerably to it with a view to Featured Article candidacy. Considering how short a time Disraeli was in power it is striking how dominant a figure he was in 19th century politics in Britain and elsewhere. We hope we have done him justice, and invite comments on the article as it now stands: the prose, the balance, the clarity, the images—indeed, pretty well anything. – Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As prospective conom on the article at FAC, I'd also like to join in with what Tim has had to say, especially as regards Mackensen, who has given us a very solid basis to start from.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank Tim and Wehwalt for their kind references, and reiterate my appreciation for the massive amount of work they've put in to the article. I have this review watchlisted and I'll try to help in any way I can. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (not a review, yet): Concerning the list of citations, is it a deliberate decision to have all 260 in a single column? This hasn't been the practice of either nominator in recent FAs; is there a reason? Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose it is something we gave much thought to. I will play with it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two columns, I think, on balance is better than three.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two cols for notes, 4 for citations, looks good to me. Beginning my reading now, hopefully some helpful comments before I lay me down to sleep. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009:

  • Enjoyed reading it - I'm looking forward to this getting to (and through) FAC.
  • I thought the lead perhaps underplayed his time in office, and would have expected a little bit more detail on him here.
  • The article doesn't really explain what the Tory position in the world was - it's wikilinked, but I'd advise a sentence or two breaking the reader into the political world you're describing. Same applies to the Whigs - otherwise its mysterious why Disraeli thinks of them as "anathema" etc.
  • Ditto, I think many readers won't understand the post-1832 Victorian electoral system; may be worth a sentence explaining who Disraeli's voters were (or weren't!).
  • Although anti-Semitism wasn't as rife in the first half of the 19th century as it was later, it might be worth noting that it was a factor in the social elite (e.g. the Tory party)
    • I'm not sure this is my best drafting. There was a level of casual background anti-Semitism in Britain as everywhere else. Perhaps I ought to say something like, "In the first half of the 19th century Britain was not a particularly anti-Semitic society"? Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By June 1825 he and his business partners had lost £7000." - worth considering how to communicate to the reader the extent to which this was a large sum of money for the time.
  • "Disraeli obtained a loan of £25,000 (equivalent to about £2.13 million as at 2013" - the CPI isn't a good mechanism for these sorts of sums, as noted at the top of the template that's being used in the article, [Template:Inflation], which advises it constitutes OR when used in this way. I'd advise either having a look at a specialist website like this, or finding a comparison figure from the period.
It's difficult to compare money over such a long history, I am of the opinion it is best to avoid it. Disraeli undoubtedly employed at least a couple of dozen people at his homes in London and at Hughenden. That was not a large expense back then, but today, it would cost him perhaps a million pounds. How do you compare such things?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per the essays linked above, its challenging, but not necessarily impossible... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree with Wehwalt that this is a dodgy area. I used to use the Measuring Worth site a lot, but I have been persuaded by other editors that it is not necessarily a helpful guide. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expected a short section on the historiography of Disraeli - how historians' opinions on him have altered over the years, given he is a major figure and the literature on him has shifted backwards and forwards over the years - and was a little disappointed that there wasn't one, given the decent writeups of his literary work etc. at the end. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the last, I looked for such information, but did not find sufficient detail for a writeup. I will look some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I'm not suggesting you actually use this (it's an introductory text book for 1st year degree students, so not the greatest RS), but something like B. H. Abbott's "Gladstone and Disraeli" covers a lot of the ground, at least up until the 1970s. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is relatively short, can you send me page images? I will have to send you an email that you can reply to and attach.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will try scanning it tomorrow morning - if I can get a decent quality (my scanner isn't, um, great...) will happily send the bits over. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted the book at the British Library this morning, and have quoted it twice in the "Legacy - Political" section. Please have a look and see if I have caught the gist. Tim riley (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is by way of a first instalment of comments. I have not looked at the lead – it makes more sense to do that last, when the necessary changes have been made to the text. The points listed are all relatively small ones, requiring minor textual revisions. I may have a few more general comments when I am done with the detail.

Childhood
1820s
  • "After that, Disraeli's influence on the paper waned, and to his resentment he was sidelined by Murray." Isn't saying that D's influence waned, and that he was sidelined by Murray, essentially saying the same thing twice?
  • I am not too happy with the description "Tory literary world". "Tory" has a rather specific political sense, though I gather that the objections to Disraeli's writings were as much on social (snobbish) grounds as political.
  • 1830s
  • There seems to be something of a lacuna around the period 1827–29, the years of his nervous crisis. How was he occupied, and what did he live on?
    • Have added that he lived with Mum and Dad. (The latter being very comfortably off no doubt subsidised him, though Benjamin hated, and avoided whenever possible, tapping Dad for a loan). Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is quite impossible that anything adverse to the general measure of Reform can issue from my pen." They way the sentence containing this quotation is punctuated, it is not absolutely clear whether the quote is Croker's "high Tory" sentiment, or Disraeli's objection.
  • "the politics of the nation were dominated by members of the aristocracy, with some commoners". The wording "some commoners" does not give a very precise picture. Perhaps, "and a few powerful commoners"?
  • "Disraeli stood unsuccessfully for High Wycombe in each". I would add the words "as a Radical" somewhere.
  • "electoral systems" or "electoral system"?
  • "In 1835 Disraeli stood, unsuccessfully, as a Radical for the last time". At High Wycombe, or elsewhere?
  • "In the same year he fought a by-election at Taunton as a Tory". This sentence is really part of a new thread, since it is relevant to D's dispute with O'Connell, and you give the result a couple of paragraphs later. At present, the comment reads as an aside. I suggest a little rejigging of the paragraph organisation, and that when giving the result you mention Torbay again.
Backbencher
Bentinck and the leadership
  • Third paragraph: the fate of the measure permitting Jews to enter Parliament is not clear; what was the result of the vote?
  • The last paragraph of this section begins: "Within a month..." - within a month of what? We have not had a clear date for some time, and the chronology definitely needs tightening in the section.
    • Yes. Will do. And now over to Wehwalt for the rest of your comments on the main biog section (as we have divvied up the writing with me on the early years and lit crit and Wehwalt on the years in office.) Thank you, sir! Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First Derby government
  • Russell resigns in the first paragraph – but in the second, three months later, he is dismissing Palmerston from his cabinet. One assumes that Stanley's failure to form a government meant that Russell remained in office, but this needs to be made explicit.
Spelled out.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the basis of the Queen's animosity towards Palmerston?
Blake doesn't say, but his citation leads here "the Queen seemed distressed". That's pretty weak, so I will remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, first mention of "Victoria" in the text should be as "Queen Victoria"
I've tossed a mention of her across the Maginot Line to the time of King William's death.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a link on "prorogued"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, the election had no clear winner..." - why make the reader use a link to find which election this is? Give date, e.g. "...the election of June 1852…"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "revenue-neutral" requires a hyphen
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cliftonian (aka "an Israeli look at Disraeli")

Infobox
  • You should probably have a comma here "Disraeli photographed" → "Disraeli, photographed ..."
  • Under "religion" we have "Judaism" and "Anglican". For consistency we should have either "Judaism / Anglicanism" or "Jewish / Anglican"
Lead
  • Does One-nation conservatism need a capital letter on "One"?
  • The sentences in the second paragraph seem very short and choppy. Might I suggest you have another look here?
  • "ill-health" I don't think we should have a hyphen here?
  • Comma after Queen Victoria
  • "dominated by the Eastern Question—the slow decay of the Ottoman Empire and the desire of other countries, such as Russia, to gain at its expense" Maybe "... the Eastern Question, relating to the slow decay ..." As is, the wording isn't quite right to me
  • "in Afghanistan and in South Africa" why not just "in Afghanistan and South Africa"?
  • "reinstitution" should be "reinstituting"
  • "angering farmers" I don't imagine the American farmers were angry. Shouldn't we say "angering British farmers"?
  • Endymion should be in italics.
Apart from the one mentioned above about the Eastern Question, all points attended to. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
That might be redundant. Perhaps "a subsequent dispute"?
I've made it "a second dispute" Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSNUM, if the number is expressible in one or two words, it is acceptable as prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I didn't know that. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Office
  • Make clear that although Russell resigned, he actually stayed in office a while longer
Brian also flagged this and I've dealt with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and MPs prepared to divide—when Gladstone rose to his feet and began an angry speech, despite the efforts of Tory MPs to shout him down" I'm not sure this is worded correctly. I would suggest you review
I've rephrased, please take second look to ensure your concern was addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need an endash in "44–year"; a hyphen is correct
  • "to seek to unseat the government" maybe "to challenge the government"
Someone changed to "defeat" and I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1858, Baron Lionel de Rothschild became the first Jewish MP" Some would point out that Disraeli himself, despite having converted, remained Jewish by blood. Perhaps say that Rothschild "became the first MP of Jewish faith" or similar
I will finesse the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new wording is very good, good job —Cliftonian (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most Englishmen expected the South to win? What made them think that? I am aware that many of them wanted the South to win, but expecting them to do so is not the same thing.
That's what Baron Blake said. I wrote very close to the source there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine, incidentally, that they felt closer to the Southern aristocracy than to the Northern Republicans. After all, Lincoln was not born in a stone mansion, so sniff sniff..--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Back later, I will have a chunk of spare time later today. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "met for the first time the Prussian Count Otto von Bismarck" Maybe "met the Prussian Coutn Otto von Bismarck for the first time"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schleswig-Holstein question should have a capital Q. Maybe also make clear this related to the territorial dispute between Denmark and the German Confederation
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that neither would ever hold office again" perhaps "neither of them …"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Reform Act 1867 passed that August;[139] extending the franchise by 938,427—an increase of 88%—by giving the vote to male householders and male lodgers paying at least £10 for rooms." This isn't worded right. I'd replace the semicolon with a comma
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • fifteen → 15
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metropolises such as Liverpool and Manchester." I'm not sure I like this. Why not just "major cities"? (unless metropolises was an official term actually used at the time)
They were at the time both towns, but are no longer. I will change to "municipalities".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better, well done —Cliftonian (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Down to "Prime Minister", more later

—Cliftonian (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will be working on the post-1852 ones, but I am way behind and trying to get another article written before I leave on a research trip on Thursday, and I will get these things done in fits and starts, certainly catch up before I go (I will have my laptop with me).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't post for a bit, (a) to enable you to catch up and (b) to let Cliftonian work through (he's a faster worer than me, being young and energetic), as two simultaneous reviews can be awkward if the reviwers disagree. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll join the queue for when others have finished. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian is done, but as I have very limited online access until Saturday, I am suggesting to SchroCat that he step in meanwhile. Brianboulton (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Prime Minister
  • As "Prime Minister" is capitalised in the text, shouldn't it also be in the title of this section?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1873 Gladstone brought forward legislation to establish a Catholic university in Dublin. This divided the Liberals, and on 12 March an alliance of Conservatives and Irish Catholics defeated the government by three votes." ... wait, what? Why did Irish Catholics vote against setting up a Catholic university?
Blake says "the Bill satisfied neither Catholics nor Protestants". Page 527.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Balloting began on 1 February and spread out over the following two weeks" Maybe "Balloting was spread over two weeks, starting on 1 February"
Done with slight modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disraeli, in the campaign, devoted much of his attention to" Maybe just "Disraeli devoted much of his campaign to"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • nineteen → 19
In that case, I think it needs to stay text to parallel the seven.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ill-health" again; shouldn't this be "ill health"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following morning, newspapers carried word of his ennoblement." Maybe "The newspapers reported his ennoblement the following morning."
  • "though he took a commission on the deal, his capital was at risk as Parliament could have refused to ratify the deal" Not wild about this repetition "the deal ... the deal"; maybe review
Modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best seller"; shouldn't this be "best-seller"?
  • You don't need to wl Bismarck again
  • "The Congress of Berlin was held in June and July 1878; the central relationship in it that between Disraeli and Bismarck." Shouldn't this semicolon be a comma?
  • "The Prussian chancellor in later years would show visitors" Maybe "In later years, the Prussian chancellor would show visitors"
All of above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann!" Maybe give an English translation too ("The old Jew, this is the man!"); while this is very basic German, not all readers will understand it
It seems to lose something in translation. I'd welcome more comments on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blake (p, 646) quotes the phrase without thinking it necessary to translate it. A swift dip into Google Books shows that of those other authors who include the phrase and offer a translation, the English differs subtly from one to another, from the literal "The old Jew, that is the man" to the nuanced "The old Jew, he is the man" and "The old Jew, there is a man". I think on balance it is probably better to follow Blake's example. If anyone waves Wikipedia:MOS#Foreign-language quotations at us during FAC we can reconsider. Tim riley (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if it comes up at FAC a solution might be to put a footnote with the various translations, as the subtle differences are quite interesting in themselves. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of this all looks excellent to me, and I can't find anything else to quibble about. This article really is first-class and you should both be very proud. I hope my comments above help. If there's any way I can help out please do let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Thank you for taking the trouble and for a most thorough review. Except for the historicity section, which I have not yet gotten to nor am likely to for a few days, I think we are up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I add my thanks to those of Wehwalt. Really thorough and helpful input. Tim riley (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really no problem. I'm glad to have been helpful. I'm satisfied with all the responses above. I'll keep on looking over this but I think it is just about there now. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

[edit]
Lead
Early life
  • 6 King's Road, Bedford Row, London, what area of London was this?
  • "T F Maples, one of the partners, was a friend of Isaac D'Israeli. He was not only the young Disraeli's employer but also his prospective father-in-law: Isaac and Maples entertained the possibility that the latter's only daughter might be a suitable match for Benjamin.[" I'd merge and rewrite this as the initial sentence looks unremarkable but if you say "T F Maples was not only the young Disraeli's employer and friend of his father's, but also his prospective father-in-law: Isaac and Maples entertained the possibility that the latter's only daughter might be a suitable match for Benjamin."
  • Yes. Better, I think. Will do, Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the need for treatment for a sexually transmitted disease on his return". Seems a bit vague and immediately has the reader asking questions. Did he mix with Egyptian prostitutes? Was he promiscuous etc.. Please do dish the dirt hehe.
    • I'm sorry to say that biographers are agreed that he caught something dodgy but don't speculate in any detail about how he got it. I imagine brothels played a part, but there's no RS for it. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unrepentantly indiscreet gossip with a fondness for intrigue" seems a little wordy
  • No link for Taunton or constituency but link for High Wycombe?
Parliament
  • "On the recommendation of the Carlton Club Disraeli was adopted as a Tory parliamentary candidate at the ensuing General Election" comma needed after Club I think.
  • 1867 Act -link?
Got that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-more tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Thank you for your excellent points so far.

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

A few very minor edits from me earlier today and Monday: feel free to revert if you disagree or just don't like. A few observations, comments and suggestions from me. Again, feel free to adopt or ignore as you feel fit. On the first couple of read throughs this is a very good piece: covers all that it should and does so in a very readable way.

Lead

  • "British Conservative politician who twice served as Prime Minister. He played a central role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party" Is there any need to link the Conservative Party twice? (I see that the overall philosophy Conservatism isn't used, let alone linked—although one-nation conservatism is—so perhaps this could be used instead? Your call either way.
  • Endymion is the only reference to his writing "career", and it's sort of sprung on us at the last minute as the final novel – perhaps just a few extra words to suggest that the book was the last of seventeen fictional works?

1820s

  • D "did not move in high society, as the numerous solecisms in his book made obvious". Grammatical errors were there because he wasn't a member of the right social class? Surely that's more an educational lapse than a class one?

1830s

Back-bencher

I'd link, just to prevent people from doing it in a manner other than the very competent one you'll do it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Derby government

Opposition

  • "Nevertheless, after peace was restored, and Palmerston in early 1858 brought in legislation for direct rule of India by the Crown, Disraeli opposed it, but many Conservative MPs refused to follow him and the bill passed the Commons easily.[126]" This is slightly clumsy—possibly because of the location of the date, which could precede Pam's name to make it smoother read.
I split the sentence, more or less. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In responding to Disraeli Gladstone": comma between the names?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow later later today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second bite

Opposition and third term as Chancellor

  • "Reform Act 1867" – already linked above
Too far above, I think the relink is justified.

First government

  • "Lord Chancellor" – already linked above
That was in the Lord Lyndhurst material, a long time ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition leader; 1874 election

  • "Balloting was spread over two weeks, beginning on 1 February[162] Disraeli devoted much of his campaign to decrying the Liberal programme of the past five years". Some form of punctuation needed twixt Feb and Dizzy.
Full stopped.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second government

  • "the smallest since Reform". The last reform we mentioned was '67, so I think we need to clarify that it's the '32 Act that we're talking about here
My understanding is that in British historical writing, "Reform" by itself as a past event is taken to refer to 1832. More comments on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree entirely (it's always been my immeditate understanding too), I'm not sure that it would be immediately obvious to those who were not as au fait with the convention, especially as the previous reference was to '67. Your call on this as I'm not going to push it too much. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Sir Stafford Northcote Chancellor": I did a double take on this one as the first reading had me thinking that Northcote Chancellor was his surname…
"the" inserted before Chancellor.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch

Congress of Berlin

  • I think I'm certainly with Cliftonian's suggestion on the various translations of Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann being in a footnote: one of my lecturers at university thought the description and translation so interesting that she spent 30 minutes going over each permutation. Although that may have been overkill, a minor footnote is of interest.
I've reluctantly put a bare-bones footnote. Play with it as you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political legacy

  • "Tory democracy" Single quotes for this, within the double quoted section?
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs FN178: Should this be single p, or double? Are all three refs from the same page?

Corrected to single p. Yes, all from the same page, much of the article is about de Lesseps' efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

  • There's a couple of entries that need a publishing location;
  • Some of the titles need putting into caps
I think I've caught the caps.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did the titles, too, and caught a few ref inconsistencies. Probably more needs to be done on the further reading, and we will get to those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All very minor fare for you in what really is an excellent and informative article. – SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for dealing with these minor points. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is more to the point to thank you, SchroCat, for your suggestions. Gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton resumes: I am back in full harness, and will try to complete my review in the next 24 hours. Here are comments on the next three sections:

Opposition
  • "Disraeli spoke patriotically in support" – in support of what?
I trust you are well. I took "of the war" out last night, fearing that it would be deemed a repetition of "Crimean War". Do you have some thoughts on a substitute to avoid repeating "war"?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just "in support of action"? Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disraeli was early to call for peace..." Slightly odd phrasing (maybe "Disraeli had been an early proponet for peace..."), but this strikes me as a position of a few lines back, when he was speaking "patriotically in support" (of the war, I presume).
I'm not quite sure I fully understand your objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I inadvertently missed some words out from my note. What I intended to convey was that, have spoken patriotically in support of the war, Disraeli is being spoken of a few lines later as an early proponent of peace, which seems a contradictory position.
  • "Indian Mutiny" is a colonial era term, and I strongly advise replacing it with something less contentious. The WP article gives numerous alternative names; I'd avoid any that include the word "mutiny".
An oversight on my part, I must not have been paying attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearly a third of those who voted against him were not Conservatives." This seems a convoluted way of saying that some of his own coalition voted against him. On a more general note, I don't think that this much detail is necessary, in an article about Disraeli. After the first sentence in the final paragraph I would simply say: "Palmerston's subsequent efforts to appease the French were widely disapproved, even among his own supporters. After being defeated on the issue in the House of Commons he resigned, and Lord Derby returned to office".
I hesitate to use the word appease. I've shortened it in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second Derby government
  • Lionel de Rothschild should be linked. You describe him as "Baron", but I don't believe he was – he would not have been in the Commons if he was a peer. I may be wrong, but I think the Rothschild peerage came later.
This should adequately answer that. He was entirely entitled to sit in the House of Commons with
Something missing from the response. I'm not sure that the link solves the issue, but as your missing words no doubt clarified, he held an Austrian barony which, as you say, did not disqualify him from sitting in the House of Commons. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the word "with" was extraneous.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Faced with a vacancy..." – someone resigned, died?
Ellenborough resigned, somewhat voluntarily, after nearly bringing down the government though his own personal idiocy. I'd rather not go into this in Dizzy's article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his decision then and previously to accept office". This only makes sense if you insert "whether" after "previously". Otherwise you should substitute "refuse" for "accept"
Touche. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Tories pursued a Reform Bill in 1859, which would have resulted in a modest increase to the franchise." Marginal relevance to the main subject?
Disraeli was a major part of this, as second-in-command to Derby and Leader of the House in the Commons. It helps set up the 1867 Reform Bill. The need to revise the 1832 Act was becoming pressing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition and third term as Chancellor
  • "Should "Cabal" have a capital?
I've avoided the direct quote, which apparently (Blake is a bit opaque here) is from Derby.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses British English spellings (honour, favour etc), but the expression "a quarter century later" is definitely AmEng. BritEng would include "of a"
  • "defanged" looks very odd in print; I'm not sure it's even a real word (not in any of my dictionaries). I'd consider a substitute.
I've put in toothless, but if you feel a more appropriate synonym is called for for the word which my online dictionary had no trouble with.
  • "to hold the government to a majority of 18" – I think you mean to "reduce" rather than "hold"
No … prevent a greater loss. Perhaps "limit"?
  • "...though Disraeli refused to accept any from Gladstone." Surely it wasn't Disraeli's personal prerogative to decide what amendments were acceptable?
He refused to accept them as friendly amendments. Insisting risked bringing down the government which would mean the bill was lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely Tim will insist on "the Prussian Crown Princess Victoria"? "Prussian" is not part of her title.

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest

  • First government
  • The section needs more specific dating. Other than the reference to the December (no year) general election, no timeframe is given for Disraeli's first ministry.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liberal majority of 170": please check this. My figures suggest rather less, perhaps 116 (L 387, C 271)
More or less correct. That's what I get for not checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the phrasing "having the Post Office buy up the telegraph companies." It's not wrong, but the tone is, well, rather transatlantic for Victorian England.
Considering the source, not entirely surprising, but given that, suggested language might be in order.
I can see what BB means, but I have pondered other wording and everything I come up with is wordier and woollier than the existing phrasing. I think we should leave it as is. Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition leader; 1874 election
  • I think that when recording Mary Ann's death you should mention her 1868 peerage rather than leaving it until the next section
I am more inclined to put a mention at the point Diz leaves government in 1868, but will give it some thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not perhaps an issue for this article, but it would be interesting to know why the Irish Catholic MPs combined with the Conservatives to defeat legislation to establish a Catholic university in Dublin.
I give Blake's exact quote somewhere above but basically it didn't satisfy them. I gather what they really wanted was reforms at Trinity, but Blake doesn't actually say it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Conservative victory of historic proportions" – I'm not sure that the scale of the "victory", in which the defeated Liberals actually outpolled the Conservatives by 52%–44%, deserves such a description. The Conservatives gained their majority in seats because of the quirks in the electoral system: 1.1 million votes gave them 350 seats, whereas nearly 1.3 million Liberal votes gave them 242.
I will rephrase but point out that given that they hadn't won an election since 1841, and a good portion of the party had split off, this was not a minor achievement. especially considering they got crushed in 1868
Second government
  • Thought should be given to the internal organisation of this section. At present, after a preamble we have subsections headed "Domestic policy", "Foreign Policy", "Suez" (surely part of foreign policy), "Royal Titles Act" (not part of foreign policy), then three more foreign policy subheadings. Consider a general subdivision between domestic and foreign policy, with "Suez" and the other foreign headings collected under foreign policy. "Royal Titles Act", not really classifiable as domestic or foreign policy, could bring up the rear.
  • Of more importance, however, is the imbalance in the whole Second Government section between domestic and foreign affairs, the latter given about fifteen times the words accorded to the former. While the foreign issues are of greater historical significance, the domestic programme should not be so completely overwhelmed. I am not suggesting that this already very long article should be augmented further, but it should be possible to increase the domestic policy content while at the same time reducing the foreign policy detail. I note that there are existing WP artles for the Congress of Berlin and for the Afghan and Zulu wars, as well as one on the entire Second Ministry, so there should be scope for reductions somewhere.
I will not go so far as to say that nothing of import happened in domestic policy in Disraeli's second premiership, but the bulk of attention was on foreign policy. I will look though Blake (the only volume on Dizzy I have with me, to see what, if anything, happened of importance in Shropshire and the Hebrides comparable in importance to Suez, the Congress of Berlin, and offering the Queen an imperial crown, which she did not refuse even once.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I should add that I'm reluctant to send the reader to other articles, which may or may not be of good quality, These are aspects of Disraeli's career for which he is remembered, and hiding stuff from the reader on another page risks his never seeing them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the only thing that Blake covers in any detail is patronage on domestic policy. I will add a few notes and look for compensating cuts elsewhere. I've also restructured the Prime Minister section to avoid the fifth-level subheads.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disraeli had passed near Suez in his tour..." I'd give the dates, to remind us this was about 50 years earlier
  • "Gladstone opposed the measure, but less than half his party voted with him." Earlier, Gladstone had retired from public life; perhaps mention that he had returned to front-line politics
  • You need to clarify that the Prince of Wales and Prince Edward are the same person.
  • Robert Lowe is referred to as Disraeli's "old enemy", yet this is his first mention in the main text. Perhaps he should be described as "an old enemy"
I'll see if I can through a mention earlier, see talk page for request that we discuss him.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cabinet discussed Disraeli's proposal to send Indian troops to Malta". This wording could be misunderstood. Clarify that the troops weren't sent to invade Malta, but to stand by for action in the Balkans. Also, if it's relevant I'd say "troops from India" rather than "Indian troops", otherwise just "troops"
  • Perhaps "secret" rather than "quiet" negotiations
  • "...but were determined to keep Bessarabia in Europe and Batum and Kars on the east coast of the Black Sea". Needs a little rewording; Batum and Kars on the east coast of the Black Sea was surely a geographical fact.
Hollow laugh. I will rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1880 election
  • "In December 1878, he was offered the Liberal nomination for Edinburghshire, a constituency popularly known as Midlothian." Clarify that he was offered the constituency for the next general election, likely to be in 1880, not to fight immediately.
  • "Conservative chances of re-election..." I'd add the words "in 1880"
They could not know that the election would happen then. The term of this Parliament did not expire until 1881.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final months, death, and memorials
  • "Victoria was bitter at his departure as minister" – "prime minister"?
  • "...on which he had started work in 1872 and laid aside before the 1874 election." Not quite grammatical as it stands - the "on" only applies to the starting. It could be "which he had started in 1872 and laid aside..." etc
  • Last paragraph: three "memorials" in the first line. Easily avoidable, I think.

General comment: I have a slight problem with the article's overall length – 13000+ words. I recognise the importance of the subject, but with around nine subarticles I wonder if the prose is not a little too detailed at times. This is worth looking into. Otherwise my points are relatively minor, and I join with the other reviewers in acknowledging this as a fine article and a worthy future FA candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your praise and your review. We will confer on the matters you raise, though I will note that not only is my usual "political career of half a century" justification applicable, there is also a literary career not usually present with politicos. Except as noted, I've done the ones with my name on the envelope, though not necessarily in the words suggested. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to the length, I take Brian's point, and we could no doubt ditch a few incidents and trim a few hundred words here and there from the article, but it would still be a helluva length, and I am inclined to brazen it out at FAC on the grounds that (i) we have divided it into bite-sized chunks, easily digestible by any reader, (ii) it is not the longest WP article on a British PM (see Winston's), (iii) it isn't so very much longer than my own effort on Alec Douglas-Home, of whom it is often said, "Who?", and (iv) it is more than 10,000 words shorter than the ODNB's article on Disraeli. – Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I split the Chamberlain one on advice from reviewers, and I have come to conclude that was a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I so agree about Chamberlain! It just ain't right to split so. Let us stoutly resist doing the same chez Disraeli. Tim riley (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing review

Warmest thanks to everyone who has contributed to this remarkably thorough peer review. On to FAC next. Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Benjamin_Disraeli/archive1&oldid=573154529"