Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jarrow March/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2015 [1].

Jarrow March edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing revolutionary about the 1936 Jarrow march; it was the polite, constitutional action of a town brought to destitution by 1930s economic policies. They came to London, presented their case, were fobbed off with tea and sympathy, and quietly went home. Yet the march became one of the defining images of the decade, and greatly influenced post-war policies towards full employment – at least until the 1980s. But that's another tale. My thanks to some careful peer reviewers who have watched over the article's preparation and made numerous helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was one of the peer reviewers and had my say there. It is an excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wehwalt. Also had my say at the peer review. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to both of you. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
  • Alt text. None of the photographs have alt text.
  • Alt text isn't a FAC requirement. Opinions differ as to its usefulness; I am a sceptic and no longer include it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree on the usefulness, but I've struck my comment. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll follow up with a more thorough review. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your interest in the article. Any further comments will be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to make further comments, I think it is a very good article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

References
  • You have the unitalicised "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online edition", but the italicised "Who's Who online edition". I'd aim for consistency, unless you have a good reason to do something different for these two
  • Neither should be italicised, since in both cases the source is the website version, not the book. Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: "et al": shouldn't you have this italicised?
  • My view is that this tag is used so often in English that, like for example "etc", it no longer needs italicising. If the Great Riley says otherwise I will defer to him. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: Comma after author
  • FN21: I have a feeling there should be some italicisation around at least some part of "The Guardian Housing Network"
  • Slightly tricky one, this, as the source is not the newspaper but a site run by the newspaper. I have compromised by putting the paper's title in italics. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN22: I think you mean 5 November 1932
  • FN29, 42 & 89: Should be comma after author, not full stop
  • FN75: is there a reason you have a book here, rather than in the Sources section?
  • Well. it's an unpaginated ebook, so the normal short citation "Parker, p. ???" doesn't work. I though the direct link to the page would be the most helpful way of dealing with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN111: Are you sure you retrieved it in 1936?
  • Yes, my private timelord arranged this on my behalf. But someone else has "corrected" it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Skidelsky: for consistency you should add UK to Harmondsworth, as you have done for the other two Penguin books

That's it for the moment, but I'll go over it again later to make sure I've not missed anything. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking these things up. All sorted now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer-reviewer: happy then and happy now. The prose is compellingly readable, the illustrations are admirable, the text is balanced and thoroughly sourced and cited. Plainly of FA quality – as well as thought-provoking, and touching. Happy to support, on St George's Day, an article that does justice to the Englishmen and Englishwomen concerned. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Tim, your kind words and encouragement are most valuable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from SchroCat. I made some minor tweaks four or five days ago (see here) prior to the source review I gave. I have only one comment: in the UK unemployment section, is it worth a link to gold standard? Oh, and one further thought: T. Vosper Salt? Was Blandings Castle nearby? – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added the link. I'm afraid I can't do anything about Mr Salt. If you can find a way of working him into the Wodehouse article, that will be worth an extra-large barnstar. Thanks for your tweaks and comments here, and of course for your welcome support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • When the feasibility report was received by the BISF in March 1935, the Federation's chairman, Sir Andrew Duncan, at first reacted positively, his members from the north-east rather less so. - strikes me as a run-on sentence.
  • I think the readability problem perhaps arises from too many commas. As a sentence it is perfectly grammatical but I agree it reads awkwardly, and have rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special Branch - link?
  • That table with the route is really small. Could it be a bit bigger? 80% or 90%?
  • I've increased the font on both the in-text tables to 80%. Anything larger, I think, is uncomfortable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Minor nitpicks only. I feel comfortable supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld comments Been rather busy today, I'll be better off giving this a full read tomorrow after a good night's sleep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Is there an article on something like "social reform after the Second World War"? It might be useful to have a link to more background info on that.
  • Well, there's Postwar Britain, which rather skates over the immediate post-war years, or Attlee ministry, perhaps. Neither is particularly strong on social change, and neither is very well written. Not sure how useful a link to either would really be, but I'll give it further consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing isn't it that we don't seem to have any solid articles on these very important topics! Can you think of anybody who would be ideal to create a decent article on Social reform in Postwar Britain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National background
  • "Unemployment was particularly heavy in Britain's traditional staple export industries—coal mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel and textiles" -is there anything worth linking here too? I'm not sure we have specific articles on industries in the UK, we should have. Textile industry in the United Kingdom etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'll look to see what if anything can be usefully linked here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Labour Party linked but not Conservative?
Local background
  • Perhaps "The town's years as a coalfield were unhappy" should be tweaked to The town's years as a coalfield were generally unhappy as it's quite a generalised statement to make, different people might have had happier years than others! I suppose if you're referring to the town in general then it's OK as it is though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1931 general election" and "general election of November 1935", -links? -you linked the 1935 one further down but not in first instance.
  • Both theses now linked at first instance
March
  • " was given by James Gordon, the Bishop of Jarrow ." -close gap before punctuation.
Appraisal
  • "that drew the ire of one Conservative MP" -who? Why not just give the name?
  • I thought I'd save the bloke embarrassment by not revealing him as responsible for such cheap hypocricy, but it's in the source, so I've outed him. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing I can think of is perhaps asking at the graphic lab for somebody to make you a map of the route of the march or something like that with the towns illustrated and the dates. That might be useful to the reader. Aymatth2 is often good with that sort of thing, but I believe is still on holiday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A map would look prettier, but would it be able to hold all the information that's in the table (all the stopping places, the distances between them, the dates of the stops, the dates of the rest days)? If it did it would, I think, be either too large for the article, or the detail would be too small to be useful. Your friend is welcome to give it a go, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is really an impeccable piece of work, found it very difficult to see anything to complain about at all. Easily meets FA criteria, excellent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a very generous summary.Thank you for your observations which I've either attended to or commented on. And thank you for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read through this a few days ago as the subject interests me; I fixed the DABS referred to above automatically without realising they had been flagged by another reviewer, sorry. I've watched the other tweaks made since then and I'm happy to support this interesting, well written nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 3 May 2015 (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/Jarrow_March/archive1&oldid=1138464488"