- 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 16:34, 26 May 2012 [1].
Alec Douglas-Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At two days short of a year Alec Douglas-Home's premiership was among the shortest in British history, but in his two spells as Foreign Secretary he established a considerable international reputation. After an exceptionally thorough peer review I think the article now gives a comprehensive survey of his life and career, and I believe it is of FA standard. – Tim riley (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review (prose to follow tomorrow)
- File:Lord Alec Douglas-Home Allan Warren.jpg - Fine
- File:Enoch Powell Allan Warren.jpg - Fine, although I believe Warren has a colour image of Powell.
File:Macmillan cph.3b40592.jpg - I see no indication that this file was created by a US government employee. The LOC hosts numerous non-free images, so I think this one is doubtful. Replaced with File:Iain Macleod crop.jpg, which is properly tagged and licensed.- File:Royal Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II.svg -
Who is the copyright holder of the original work? Probably had Crown Copyright when created, which should be expired by now, but I'm not sure. Fine
- File:The Hirsel - geograph.org.uk - 1078464.jpg - Fine
File:Neville Chamberlain by William Orpen.jpg - Needs proof that it is PD in the US Replaced with File:Arthur Neville Chamberlain 03.jpg, which is owned by the LOC and thus PD.File:Heathdod.JPG - Source seems dead, can't find it on a .mil website. Needs proof that it was taken by the person credited. - Replaced with File:Edward Heath Allan Warren crop.jpg, which is properly tagged and credited.- File:Dunglass-Eton-and-Harrow-Match-1921.jpg - Fine
File:RA Butler by Stoneman.jpg - What makes this PD in either the UK or England? The UK has 70 pma, so this shouldn't be PD until 2028 there. Removed.- File:Alec Douglas Home Allan Warren cropped.jpg - Fine.
File:Andrej Gromyko 1967.png - Source needs to be fixed to show the creator was a US employee. This is a direct link, and this is dead for me. Replaced with File:Andrei Gromyko at Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.jpg, which is PD.- File:Dodwilson.JPG - Looks fine.
- File:Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham Allan Warren.jpg - Looks fine.
- Further image discussion moved to talk.
- Prose comments from Crisco 1492
- Resolved prose comments moved to talk page
- Alright, that's it. I'll try and find some free images to replace the ones with issues — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I ask you to look again at the two paragraphs dealing with Rhodesia under "Opposition, 1964–70" and "Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1970–74"? Another editor made extensive changes, most (not all) of which I have reverted. I should be glad of an impartial opinion as to the neutrality of the prose as it now stands. Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine to me. I'll be archiving the comments above soon (regarding prose, at least)
- Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am most grateful for your thorough and helpful review, and for your support. Tim riley (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I had my say at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For PR (wonderfully thorough) and support here, many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query First of all, thank you for developing this article. Improving any article so substantially is always a worthy achievement, and particularly so for that of a prime minister. I was just wondering - I enjoyed reading through it, but was rather taken aback by the abruptness of its end as far as the retirement section. I claim no expertise on his life, and I appreciate he retired from the front line, but can the last twenty years of his life really be summed up in around seven lines? Did he never opinion on the state of politics in the 1980s/1990s? Did he pursue nothing of note whilst a lord? Any particular cause of death listed? Just wondering. Again, great work. Redverton (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that. I'll check the sources and see if there was anything substantive to note from his years of retirement. Tim riley (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have read this article a couple of times now and I can't fault a thing. If I had to offer something in the way of a comment, then I would have to agree with Redverton about the retirement section. It looks a little short and it did leave me wondering what happened in that twenty year period. This is not an insistence however and I think that this is a thorough and superbly eloquent article and one which deserves its FA status. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. As suggested by you and Redverton I have added to the retirement section, though in truth his retirement was pretty uneventful on the whole. Tim riley (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a few comments.
I contributed to the peer review, and made certain suggestions which have been incorporated into the article. In general, the article is clear, thorough and fair, and a credit to the genre of political articles. I would just raise a couple of points for consideration:
- You quote (ref 13) from Home's memo to Sir Michael Fraser the high-minded bit about going into politics as a public service, but leave out his odd theory that whereas country people get "pretty close to true values", the rootless townspeople "need constant leadership. It is, however, they who have the votes..." And later in the memo he writes: "A large part in my decision [to become PM] was the feeling that only by simple straightforward talk to the industrial masses (sic) could we hope to defeat the Socialists". Ah, those simple-minded masses - give 'em a good talking to! Straight from Trollope (d. 1882), I'd say.
- Is that from Hennessy? I haven't got it here (consulted it at the British Library) and would be happy if you liked to add the relevant addition, either in the text or as a footnote. It's certainly quirky enough to be notable. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the Hennessy book, so I will add the extra quote and citation, in footnote form I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Later) Done. I can't resist letting you know one further scrap from Alec's mind, recorded in the Fraser memo. On the matter of Britain's declining internationl influence: "...to carry weight we must be in the First XI and not only that but one of the four opening batsmen". (emphasis added). Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I rarely laugh aloud during FAC discussions, but I did over this! Thank you for the excellent addition. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Reputation section is a little too kind. Home was undoubtedly a nice man in his aristocratic way, and much respected even by his traditional enemies (e.g. Ian Mikardo). But it is not for nothing that scholars repeatedly place Home close to the bottom of lists of the most effective 20th century prime ministers. He was not the predominant political figure of his time; in his history of the times Land of Hope and Glory, Peter Clarke asserts that throughout his premiership, Home was utterly dominated by Wilson: "No previous Leader of the Opposition without the authority of being an ex-Prime Minister himself, had enjoyed such an ascendancy". (Clarke, p. 293)
- Well, yes, but I think the thrust of the existing Reputation section is that his reputation rests on his two stints as Foreign Secretary. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Afterthought: how about adding this just before the end of the lead: "His reputation rests more on his two spells as foreign minister than on his brief and uneventful term as Prime Minister."? Or words to that effect. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I offer these as thoughts, but in no way would I seek to impose them. There are, however, a couple of minor issues you may want to address:-
- The article's title is "Alec Douglas-Home". The opening line begins "Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home...", with no explanaion here or elsewhere as to when or how he became Alec
- Footnote 13; tiniest of nitpicks, but cricket's amateur statement was abolished in 1962 (26 November, to be precise), not 1963.Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha! A short rising one. I duly smash it through the covers with this: the 26 November 1962 vote (by the 17 first-class counties) was not valid until ratified by the MCC committee, which the committee duly did, nem con, on 31 January 1963. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sh*t! It doesn't pay to be too clever when Riley is in full spate. Withdrawn with due humility. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, your input at PR and your stimulating comments above, which I hope I have addressed satisfactorily. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Congratulations to Tim riley on another excellent article. This article is comprehensive, well-written, neutral, thoroughly researched and referenced and complies with WP style guidelines. It is also well-illustrated and shows us a rounded picture of Home's life and career. Home served in the British government during a turbulent political period, and so the neutrality and balance of this article is admirable. I endorse it for FA. Note that I have done some proofreading on this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks both support here and proof-reading the article. Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – a really fine effort from Tim riley here. This article covers all relevant aspects of Douglas-Home well in a neutrally-presented and well-referenced manner. As one of Tim's articles, the prose is predictably of a very high standard, and flows well. I endorse this for FA, with only two very minor comments: I would personally render his name in the first line as Alexander Frederick "Alec" Douglas-Home, and I would caption the infobox photograph with the year of the picture (which is omitted from the image page, but it appears to be from the same shoot as this, which is dated 1986). Very well done on another sterling piece of work. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for the support and for the two suggestions, both of which I think are spot on, and I'm adopting. The one about "Alec" helps clarify the point made by Brianboulton above, and the image should indeed be dated, and will be, as soon as I've finished typing this. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly a top-notch article that is set to be promoted, but could I just make one suggestion? Several of the picture captions simply give the most basic definition of the image (ie, the individual's name or a place). I personally think captions should always provide context and explain why the image is being used. The reality is that about 90% of visitors to the page will just scan and look at the pictures, so it is best to make this clear. It can also be a great way of drawing these scanners in and actually encouraging them to read more! The Ted Heath caption is good, exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I think the page would be improved by making the other captions similarly informative. --Lobo (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point. I'll ponder. Tim riley (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN1: which Thorpe?
- FN5: no bibliographic info for this source
- FN39: which Home?
- "Thomas Symonds" or "Thomas-Symonds"?
- FN3: missing comma
- FN178: italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (The above Note 178 is now 179, as I've added a new note 97) Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Thanks as ever for your eagle-eyed reviewing. Tim riley (talk) 09:01, 22 May 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.
