Wikipedia:Peer review/War cabinet crisis, May 1940/archive1

War cabinet crisis, May 1940

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FA and I think this process will be useful before I do that. The article is about an important event in world history. Thanks, No Great Shaker (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, Roy, thanks for your efforts on this article. I don't have the knowledge to comment on the content, but overall it looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he did not see what we would lose if we decided to fight on to the end. While we might --> is this meant to be a direct quote? If not, suggest that "we" be changed to "Britain" or the United Kingdom (whichever you consider more accurate in the context)
received from General Spears in Paris: full name on first mention
same as above for General Smuts and General Weygand and others
7.00 pm --> "7:00 pm" per MOS:TIME (there are other instances throughout, such as "10.00 pm" and 4.30 etc.
in the Notes there is a harvref citation issue - the notes says "Jenkins 2002", but the Bibliography has 2001 as the date of publication for the corresponding Jenkins etry

Hello, Rupert. Thank you for this. I've got more availability now so I'll pick up these points. All the best, Roy. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The hardback of Jenkins' book was published in 2001 but I'm using the paperback which was 2002 so it's the bibliography entry that needed attention. The old 7.00 time format is still often used in GB but we're seeing 07:00 much more nowadays and I think it's best to swim with the tide so the MOS is right on that one. First names, yes, I missed those by using the ranks. The first point wasn't a quote but the way I wrote it did look like a quote so I've amended it. That was all very useful, Rupert, and thank you again very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, your changes look good. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: G'day, Roy, given that there have been no new comments since Tim's in early November, I'd suggest closing this now per WP:PRG. You will still be able to access the review page to action anything you wish to, in your own time, via the article's talk page. If you need a hand processing the close, please let me know. I'd be happy to make the necessary edits for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

This is an enjoyable article, but it is not yet ready for FAC, in my view.

Some peripheral material, though interesting, could do with trimming:
- the speculation in the last paragraph of "War situation to Friday, 24 May" is not really core information.
- The file numbers of the papers in the National Archives clutter up the main text and should be relegated to a footnote, in my view.

I agree with both these points and action has been taken. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few tendentious statements that ought to be redrawn more neutrally, for instance:
- everyone in France and Great Britain wanted to keep Italy out of the war (everyone?)
- Halifax had an ulterior motive (a very loaded adjective)
- Such a deal, as Roy Jenkins says, would have been the equivalent (you are endorsing RJ's comments rather than just summarising them)

Agreed and all amended. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italics: some unexpected and I think undesirable italicisations:
- Hard and heavy tidings (should be in normal type with quotation marks)
- We shall fight on the beaches (ditto)

Quotes used instead. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some statements are no doubt correct but are not conspicuously cited:
- Does ref 33 cover every statement in the 155-word, 8-sentence para?
- Does ref 61 back up the statement in the last sentence of the para?

33 does cover the whole paragraph but I've increased its usage for clarity. The sentence about Attlee needed a different citation to the rest of that paragraph so that was well spotted. Amendments done. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some words crop up so often that they become obtrusive:
- there are 14 "however"s in the article. Most of them add nothing to the meaning of the sentence and could advantageously be removed.
- There are seven "considerable"s (though one is in a quotation) – a less woolly word would be welcome here and there.

Couldn't agree more and this shows the need for another pair of eyes. Can't believe that so much however crept in. It's one of those non-words that people use without thinking about it. Considerable seems to have been much used by Chamberlain in particular but, as you say, there are good alternatives to that. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block quotations.
- Short quotations should be in line with the text. Block quotations are reserved for longer material. See MOS:BQ. On my screen there are four one-line block quotes.

Wasn't aware of MOS:BQ. All done. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading
- A single-line list seems odd, and why list Roberts's book if it isn't worth citing in the article?

Three more have been added since your review. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs
- At FAC there is a certain fussiness about applying Wikipedia's rules, and a mixture of 10- and 13- digit ISBNs will not go down well. There is a helpful gizmo here for converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit.

Very useful. All converted to 10-digit. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 09:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is embarrassing but I've just realised the review page hasn't been on my watchlist and I've missed Tim's comments until minutes ago when Rupert's message flagged an alert. Tim, your feedback is very useful and I will take it into the article now I've seen it. Apologies for the oversight. Rupert, you're right that the PR can be closed now. Thank you both very much indeed for all your help. All the best. Roy. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks very much for the feedback. All of it has been acted upon. Apologies again for losing this page from my watchlist. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]