Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drapier's Letters/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [1].

Drapier's Letters edit

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) and Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's up to the required level. This is a co-nomination between me and User:Ottava Rima; we've been discussing and working on proposed changes in the background for quite a while, and now that we've implemented them we feel it's time for FAC. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added my name to the nom to confirm. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Most of the images are text-only; WP:ALT#Text provides particular suggestions for that case. WP:ALT#Portraits can be consulted for the portrait. Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I forgot about that somehow. Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added alts - unfortunately, they are quite long as per what was required on the page you linked. Hopefully, no one will mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick work. I tweaked it a bit for brevity but couldn't resist transcribing the Horace. The alt text could be made somewhat briefer still and nobody would mind, but like Pascal we lack the time. Eubulides (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left Horace out simply because it is translated in the caption. However, I don't know how to deal with such situations to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments: All fine. RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs and links: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Drapier%27s_Letters One case needs disambiguating. All fine. RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • They may be too many citations in the lead. If indeed the material is also covered in the text, then the citations in the lead can safely be removed. If not, then some of the material may need to moved into the text and the lead possibly rewritten slightly.
  • From the readers point of view (and mine), this "Even Swift's satire of Wood's character was based on actual evidence and added very little to what Wood provided the public through his words and actions." is cited to Treadwell p. 76–91. That's 15 pages. Could you give an explanation? (If the citation covers other preceding material, too, then add more citations to Treadwell as appropriate, preferably to specific pages).
    • Does that mean this one sentence is a synthesis of Treadwell's arguments from page 76 to 91? RB88 (T) 02:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "The Drapier does not directly attack Isaac Newton's assay of Wood's coin, but instead attacks the process behind the assay and the witnesses who testified before the Privy Council. In his criticism of the Privy Council's report, the Drapier claims that the report is part of Wood's propaganda and lies, because Wood released three proposals concurrent with the report: lowering the patent production quota from £100,800 to £40,000 worth; that no one is obliged to accept more than five pence halfpenny per transaction; and to sell the coin at 2s 1 d a pound or his raw copper at 1s 8d a pound." is cited to Ehrenpreis p 226;229-230;249-250. The three citations have to be separated and put in their respective sentences to improve reader scholarship because, as it stands, the ref is a bit clunky and confusing.

RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the lead are duplicates of citations and passages in the body. However, the comments are -controversial- (as this is a pro-Ireland, anti-England subject), even if duplicated, and thus require a reuse of the citations.
"Could you give an explanation?" - it is a summary of what Treadwell points out, as Treadwell goes step by step and lays out examples. For the second section, it cannot be broken down, as Ehrenpreis builds the argument over those pages. You would have parts from page 229 before 226, or things in 250 before 230, etc. It would make it even more complicated plus condensing of references when it is the same author and the citations are back to back is standard practice, so the numbers would need to be united. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, 1a. Although I haven't scoured it completely, it looks pretty well written. Bit overlinked (coin? English? Patent ... English-speakers supposed to know it means a monopoly). Lower down, "papal"? There is a section of the article on "Pope" that is more focused, is there? Same with "copyright"—surely there's a more focused, relevant target than the top of that article). The hated "in order to" (hated by Tony1).

  • "These coins would take away valuable silver coins from the Irish economy"—Unsure what "take away" means in this context. Dilute the value/status of?
  • "analyzed"—US and Canada only. S required for BrEng.
  • I guess an idea of what a vast fortune 108 thousand pounds was in those days is hard to convey neatly and accurately. And indeed a bribe of 10 thousand. Tony (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, Ironholds missed analyzed. :D The Queen wont be happy! Okay, for "papal" - are you saying that you want a better link than Pope? Because papal merely means the Pope's influence (i.e. his name is "il papa", so the adjective of papa is papal). Or are you saying that you want papal influence to be linked with some kind of historical page? If you could find a page devoted to post Reformation British fears of Catholic take over, I could link that (and if there isn't one, there probably -should- be one). Take away literally means the coins would be taken out of Ireland, stripping them of any hard currency. Ireland would have money -leave- Ireland without having any come in. I don't know the economics term for such a thing, but it does destroy economies (and creates massive deflation in a way similar to a loss of credit). I'll put a money converter for those figures. £14,697,000 and £1,360,800 respectively (or, about 26 million and 2 million). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the "in order to" but I wont remove the one from Swift. :P The first one is necessary to express a cause and effect that would be lost (if you can think of another way to accomplish it, that would help). I changed the link to copyright to Statute of Anne (the specific copyright law). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) "Papal"—it's a normal English word; I'm just searching for a better reason to link it. English-speakers are supposed to know what it means, and this is not Wiktionary. At a pinch, this section-link might suffice (it's not my field, though—better for your expertise to be the judge). OR History_of_the_Papacy#Reformation? Or better still Catholic_Church_in_England#Tudor_era? Sorry, I'm being lazy about the exact period. My point is that we can and should direct readers towards a much more specific part of WP than merely a definition (which they should know or look up in their dictionary).
I raised the currency conversion issue knowing that it's a vexed one for historians. WP:MOSNUM#Currencies says a few interesting things. You could provide an "approx." equivalent or be safer and say something like "a vast amount of money at the time". Unsure.
Would "removed from circulation" be acceptable for "taken away"? Tony (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to papal in general. I replaced "about" with "approximately" for the inflation numbers, and I switched in "removed from circulation". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Tony (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries I've made a few small tweaks, but wonder if you could check your sources about:

  • "The first three pamphlets were written as a set intended to conclude the matter. However, when Lord Carteret was sent to control Ireland and placed a bounty on the Drapier's head, Swift felt that a fifth pamphlet was necessary." So what happened to the fourth?
  • "Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, it is certain that most people in Ireland, including members of the Irish Privy Council, knew that Swift was the author of the letters." Most people in Ireland is a petty big claim, especially in an era before radio and television. Would you mind checking your sources, is there any chance that this was referring to the opinion formers and the intelligentsia such as the limited number of people who could vote, or the people likely to have read a pamphlet with a circulation of 2,000?
  • " Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and Swift is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor" Would that have been Drapier not Swift?
  • "Although the language and examples employed by the Drapier to describe the possible economic harms were viewed as over the top," viewed by whom? ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the two typos (fifth instead of fourth, Swift instead of Drapier). There was more than just those that could read who heard about the Drapier and Swift's actions. Remember, this is a major constitutional issue for Ireland. Swift was a figure as wide known as Parnell. Most would only require 51%, and multiple sources verify it. As for the last query - "many critics and historians" follows that clause, and that is the subject of the sentence. The clause refers to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing those two points. I don't see that phrase as clear as to whether his comments were regarded as over the top by his supporters at the time, neutrals at the time or "many critics and historians". But now that you've clarified what it should mean I will try to clarify the sentence. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking your sources about most knowing Swift was the author. I still think that "It is certain that most people" is a bit strong especially when qualified by "including members of the Irish Privy Council" (we don't exactly have MORI in that era). What do you think about "Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, it became an open secret in Ireland, with even members of the Irish Privy Council knowing that Swift was the author of the letters." ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Decline: Footnote two is unverifiable as it lacks information about the location of the evidence for the claim within the work. "^ Coxe" is the footnote.[reply]
    Minor nitpick: "^ Dublin Journal 3 December 1726" is not in common style. Also, it lacks location information. I know regarding 18th century newspapers, but you can always "¶beginning Birthday of Foo..."
    Poor formatting, double period, "Goodwin, A.. "Woods Halfpence". The English Historical Review LI (1936): pp. 647–674. doi:10.1093/ehr/LI.CCIV.647."
    Same, "Treadwell, J.M.. "Swift, William Wood, and the Factual Basis of Satire". Journal of British Studies 15.2 (1976): pp. 76–91.."
    Same, "Weedon, Margaret. "An Uncancelled Copy of the First Collected Edition of Swift's Poems". The Library 5.XXII (1967): pp. 44–48.."
    Maybe your citation template is acting up on periods? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. That second citation lacked the numbers but the inline citations for the actual text has the numbers later. This was added back in to the first position. 2. The citation was a stray citation and was moved there. I removed it, as the passage is to Ehrenpreis. 3. Fixed. 4. Fixed. 5. Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – overall a nice article about an interesting topic. A few quibbles:
"Patent" is used in an uncommon sense, as nowadays patent implies an invention. Suggest changing repetition of patent to monopoly, thus "William Wood was granted a patent to mint the coin, and Swift saw the licensing of this monopoly as corrupt." and in the Backgound section "In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted a patent to produce copper coinage of up to £108,000 (approximately £14,697,000 as of 2009) for use in Ireland.[8] This monopoly was secured by a bribe of £10,000". Note the piped links are to Letters patent which seems appropriate.
Throughout the article there are references to the English government and the English Parliament. Much as I like to blame the English for any nastiness, the period is after the Acts of Union 1707 and so it should be the Parliament of Great Britain, and hence the British government. Dominated by the German king and the English nobles, but nominally British. Similarly, in the To Mr Harding section, "the English Privy Council" is presumably incorrect, safer to follow Swift's later usage and call it "the Privy-Council in England".
In Background, "These coins would remove from circulation valuable silver coins from the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount." is a bit of a guddle. Suggest "These coins would remove valuable silver coins from circulation in the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount."
Also, "Wood's coin was only one aspect of "an unfavorable balance of trade" that hurt Ireland;[11]" is presumably quoting Moore p. 66 directly, and introducing US spelling into a European English article. (note care to avoid saying the Irish are English! :) Why not just omit the quotes and call it unfavourable? The same reference is also cited for the preceding sentence, so that earlier inline cite is superfluous.
Pamphleteering – "a religious devout individual who believes in scripture" seems wrong, should be "a religiously devout individual who believes in scripture" or "a devout religious individual who believes in scripture" in my opinion.
Pamphleteering – "meant as an important aspect to the Drapier's identity" should in my view read "meant as an important aspect of the Drapier's identity".
Pamphleteering – "four more pamphlets, filled with invectives and complaints" should I think be "four more pamphlets, filled with invective and complaints".
To the Shop-keepers – "Tenant farmers would no longer be able to pay their landlords, and , after the tenants are removed, there will be fewer crops grown in Ireland; the increase of poverty and the decrease of food supply would completely ruin Ireland's economy." – shouldn't that be past tense throughout?
To the Shop-keepers – "The Drapier makes sure to use Wood as the primary target" seems awkward, it might be better as "The Drapier is careful to use Wood as the primary target" or "The Drapier makes sure that Wood appears to be the primary target". [surplus "to" removed by me as minor edit]
10. To Mr Harding – "Wood's choice of wording, that the Irish he would be "obliged" to accept the coin" presumably has a surplus he, also "the king is unable to constitutionally force any money to be accepted by his people except that made of gold or silver." might read better as "the king is unable to constitutionally force his people to accept any money that is not made of gold or silver."
To the Nobility and Gentry – "This document was released by Walpole as a defense of Wood's coin; the report argues that the coin was important to the people of Ireland." mixes tenses, "argued" would be more consistent. "Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and the Drapier is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor." should be armour.
To the Whole People of Ireland – "£300 were offered as a reward for the identity of the Drapier." is technically correct but looks awkward, I'd have been inclined to say £300 was offered, or perhaps a reward of £300 was offered.
Hope these suggestions help, dave souza, talk 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds is the law expert so he can deal with the first one and the second one. 3. Changed (added "and gold" after silver). 4. I reworded to "Also, Wood's coin was only one example of unfavourable economic practices that hurt Ireland". 5. Fixed. 6. Fixed. 7. I don't know if "invective" is a natural plural but I made the change anyway. 8. It should be seen more as a hypothetical than as any specific tense, but I think I made changes to fix it. 9. Fixed. 10. I reworded the sentence and the next. 11. Changed. 12. Fixed. I'm thinking that all of the present tense used in the article about the letters might need to be changed over in order to avoid future inconsistencies with tense. It is frustrating to have to deal with documents in present tense but historical events in past. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will see whether Ironholds agrees with the legalities of the first two points, though of course there was (and is) a common practice of saying "England" when "Britain" is intended.
10. as reworded looks a bit better to me, but "As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as a kingdom limits the authority of the monarch because it forces the people of Ireland to use only gold or silver coins as official currency" seems to imply the king can force the people to not use coppers. Suggest "As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as a kingdom only gave the monarch authority to establish gold or silver coins as official currency, and did not give him powers to set copper coinage." Legal tender may be worth linking from official currency, if applicable: best check that with Ironholds. (aside: the banknotes in my wallet aren't legal tender, but as Royal Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank notes they're much nicer designs than the Bank of England notes, and in practice work just as well)
Agree that the tenses get tricky when describing documents, we had some issues with that on The Origin – think it's looking better now. . dave souza, talk 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"seems to imply the king can force the people to not use coppers" My reading of the sources seems to verify that implication, but I don't know about the actual law and I could be misreading sources. I asked Ironholds to hurry up and make an appearance here and I will differ all knowledge on the constitutionality to him, as he is an expert on British law. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the Privy Council - English is commonly used (to distinguish between the Council and other, albeit abolished bodies, such as the Scottish Privy Council) but British would be best in this situation. There was "England" and "Scotland" prior to 1707, but since those two bodies were then unified "British" is technically correct. Alternately we could use the official "Her Majesty's Most Honourable..." but that'd just confuse people. To summarise; "English" is sometimes used, but "British" would be the closest to a correct term that doesn't confuse people. I appreciate this statement may have confused people; in my defence I just had a financial services law lecture. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. This raises an additional problem - Parliament. British or English? Technically British, so I've changed it to British, but it occurs to me that this might confuse people when you have "the English did this, the British Parliament did that". Do we change all instances of English to British? Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume we are going to have to. I blame the Scots. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If they hadn't financed a silly colonisation attempt it'll all be dandy. So shall we change instances of, say "the English people" to "British", then? Or just all official bodies? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this on board, Damien Scheme or no. I'd be inclined to follow the sources: Scots and Welsh were probably not noted as involved so much in the opression of the Irish of that time, and it's likely that complaints were against the English as being the main group in charge. So yes, I'd think it best to keep official bodies correct, but we could be more relaxed where sources refer to English people. Even people who are unaware of these nuances are unlikely to notice that as being anything amiss, as British and English are rather often used interchangeably. . .dave souza, talk 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. So; British for the Parliament and Council, English where otherwise used. I've implemented those changes - give me a poke here or on my talkpage if I've missed any. Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without checking right through, the lead has "...prompting from the English government... Many Irish people recognized Swift as a hero for his defiance of English control over the Irish nation." Thought you'd want to review how that looks with British government, and of course I don't have the source for the second statement to hand. Have you any thoughts about patents really being letters patent giving a monopoly, as my first point? . dave souza, talk 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made more changes of English to British along with put "letters patent" in two places (beginning of lead and beginning of background). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also just realized that there was an extra "he" that you pointed out above. I removed that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you've acted to meet my concerns, even if the poor old Brits are getting most of the blame now! Don't know if others will want to review these changes, but that's sufficient for me. Couple of points for you to ponder: I'm uncomfortable about "British copyright law" as I've been brought up to think of English law and Scots law being separate but related systems, as shown in British law. However, there is clearly British (and subsequently UK) legislation, so it may well be valid to call it "British copyright law". As someone used to dealing with contract and acting under legislation rather than a lawyer, it's beyond my expertise. Also, not sure if the term is singular or plural, it seems a bit odd saying "a letters patent" but as far as I can tell it's correct. Thanks again for tackling this and checking for ones I'd missed. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a law student, so I can handle this stuff :). Letters patent is the correct term. In regards to "British law", many areas of law are "British" - company law, for example. Most statutes in such areas cover the entirety of the UK. What distinguishes Scots and English law in such situations is the interpretation by judges of the statutes. Because of that there is both "British" copyright law and "English" or "Scots" copyright law. In the context of Motte v. Faulkner it is "English copyright law", since it's an English interpretation of a statute, but if we're just talking about the Statute of Anne it's British. This could be easily resolved if we just used "Statute of Anne" instead of "British copyright law" - thoughts? Incidentally Motte v. Faulkner needs to drop the . - I'm editing that out now. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that educational and informative clarification, I was conscious of there being a complex situation but am not knowledgeable enough to advise. I did consider ""British copyright legislation" but leave the decision in your capable hands. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmn, hadn't considered that. I guess that works just as well (slightly better, in some respects) as "Statute of Anne", so lets do that. Ironholds (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Drapier%27s_Letters/archive1&oldid=1138458967"