Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Minor prose quibbles and whatnot

• The "jewish" element in the lede? Don't reference it. Ledes should be either entirely referenced or entirely unreferenced (minus quotes). Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My memory is that the last assessment quibbled about this in the other direction, and at least one editor made trouble in the past, arguing that Disraeli wasn't Jewish. I didn't see any need to reference it but other editors have disagreed. Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It's an MOS vio is the problem. Other editors can refer to the manual of style if they have a problem and then quiet down about it :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I am having trouble finding where it violates the MOS. I have checked WP:LEAD but there seems to be no specific mention of "all cites or no cites". The section on citations says that lead sections are more general and usually don't require citations, but where a statement is controversial or open to challenge then a need for a citation should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Road Wizard (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Ack, they've changed it since I last read it; christ I feel old. Ignore this point. Ironholds (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing problems

The main issue here is referencing.

• "During the 1840s Disraeli wrote three political novels collectively known as "the Trilogy"–Sybil, Coningsby, and Tancred." - unreferenced.
• "Though he initially stood for election, unsuccessfully, as a Radical, Disraeli was a Tory by the time he won a seat in the House of Commons in 1837 representing the constituency of Maidstone." - unreferenced.
• "Disraeli had offered to stand aside as leader of the House of Commons in favour of Palmerston, but the latter declined." - unreferenced.
• "Gladstone's final speech on the failed Budget marked the beginning of over twenty years of mutual parliamentary hostility, as well as the end of Gladstone's formal association with the Conservative Party. No Conservative reconciliation remained possible so long as Disraeli remained leader in the House of Commons." - unreferenced.
• "With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches. Derby's successor as Prime Minister was the Peelite Lord Aberdeen, whose ministry was composed of both Peelites and Whigs. Disraeli himself was succeeded as chancellor by Gladstone." - unreferenced.
• "After engineering the defeat of a Liberal Reform Bill introduced by Gladstone in 1866, Disraeli and Derby introduced their own measure in 1867." - unreferenced.
• "Cranborne, however, was unable to lead a rebellion similar to that which Disraeli had led against Peel twenty years earlier." - unreferenced.
  • Most of these are simple facts; the judgments on Gladstone, Disraeli and Cranborne could do with a couple cites each. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have added citations for these. I have to say I dislike the referencing system used in this article. Is it really necessary for notes to be hyperlinks to the references section? Is it really too much trouble for the reader to scroll down?--Britannicus (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry? The references-as-hyperlinks element which is used in every decent article on Wikipedia? And when you've got a rather substantive article it's putting a burden on the user to remember that it's ref 102 they're looking for as they scroll past 60kb of text (for example). Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
        • There are plenty of decent articles which have not found it necessary to use this system.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], etc.--Britannicus (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
          • They all use referencing hyperlinks, unless you mean something different from what my understanding of your point is. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes I did mean something different. I'm not sure I can explain it any differently from my first post.--Britannicus (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
              • I understood you meant the little hyperlinked [1] and [2] signs. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coverage

• I find it hard to believe this is all the coverage available. There are many, many biographies of Disraeli, almost none of which are used here; while you do not have to use every source known to mankind, you do have to use enough that the subject is appropriately covered. The Third Derby Ministry is simply about the Reform Bill, the "Opposition" section consists of a single unreferenced line. His coverage as Prime Minister is tiny; four paragraphs for several successive Parliaments? He has almost no coverage after his defeat in 1880, and a tiny explanation of the 1880 election itself; the rest of his article consists of his peerage, death and jewishness, all of which are inappropriately sectioned ("Disraeli's Jewishness" in "Prime Minister"?) There is absolutely nothing on his legacy, influence or personal traits. Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know how that got sectioned that way; I've fixed it. The article is based primarily on Robert Blake's 1966 biography, which is still the modern standard other biographies are judged against. I don't see much point in sprinkling other works around unless they contradict Blake or add something new to the discussion. A good example would be Adam Kirsch's new short volume, which deals extensively with Disraeli's conception of Judaism but needs to be worked into the article. I agree with most of the criticisms; I wrote the bulk of this article several years ago and just haven't had time to get it up to featured status. As far as the third Derby ministry the Reform Bill is the central feature, and part which most concerns Disraeli's own career. That being said not nearly enough is said there about Disraeli's behavior during the bill, in particular the household suffrage issue. In addition to biographies, this article draws on a number of academic studies and journals, but those could probably do with expanding and updating as well. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Indeedy. There's the initial problem of the end of the article; while you've got a lot of stuff on things like his early life, there's next to nothing on the 1880 election or his later career and legacy. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)